In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
House Democrats, NRA Seek to Strengthen Background
fitzx2
Member Posts: 39 ✭✭
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267620,00.html
House Democrats, NRA Seek to Strengthen Background Checks for Gun Purchasers
Saturday, April 21, 2007
WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking mentally ill people from buying guns.
Lacking support to enact strong new gun measures even after the Virginia Tech shootings, Democrats are instead resurrecting legislation, which has drawn broad bipartisan support and NRA backing, that would improve the national background check system.
The measure, a version of which has passed the House in two previous Congresses but died in the Senate, could come to a House vote as early as next month. It would require states to supply more-thorough records, including for any mental illness-related court action against a would-be gun purchaser.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a strong NRA ally who has been a leading opponent of most gun control legislation, is negotiating with the group on the background-check bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has tapped Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. - a leading gun control supporter whose husband was fatally shot by a deranged gunman on the Long Island Railroad - to broker a swift compromise measure that could win passage in the House and Senate.
McCarthy said the measure was the best the Democratic-controlled Congress could do even in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage Monday in which a disturbed gunman killed 32 and then himself.
"We're not going to do anything more on guns - it's just not going to happen. This is a pro-gun Congress," said McCarthy.
Current law bars people judged by a court to be "mentally incompetent" from purchasing firearms, but the federal background check database is incomplete, with many states far behind in automating their records and sending them to the FBI.
Cho Seung-Hui, the 23-year-old gunman in the recent shootings, should have failed his background checks and been barred access to guns after a Virginia special justice found in 2005 that his mental illness made him a danger to himself, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said this week.
The measure being negotiated would subject states to possible penalties for failing to provide the information, and authorize new federal grants to help them do so.
"If we give the states what they need to enforce these limits, that's a big step," McCarthy said. "A computer is only as good as the information in it."
The measure has drawn bipartisan interest. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, an NRA ally, is among the Republicans considering signing on.
Talks on the measure are extremely sensitive, given how little time has passed since Monday's shootings on the Blacksburg, Va., campus.
The legislation has spawned an unusual alliance between gun rights activists, who want background checks to be faster, and gun control advocates, who want them to be more accurate. Still, the NRA and some of its congressional allies are skittish about appearing to support any gun control measure in the wake of the Virginia Tech rampage.
"We have a potential opportunity to get something done that both sides have agreed (on) for a couple of years," said Peter Hamm, a Brady Campaign spokesman. "There's clearly a level of distrust that's as tall as Mount Everest between the two sides in this debate. We watch each other carefully."
Democratic Rep. Richard Boucher, who represents the southwestern Virginia district where the shootings unfolded, said he would not talk about gun policies until next week at the earliest, out of respect for the families of the victims. Like most lawmakers, Boucher wore a maroon and orange ribbon on his lapel Friday, set aside as a day of remembrance for the Virginia Tech tragedy.
Dingell would not comment on the talks Friday, nor would the NRA.
"This is not the time for political discussions, public policy debates or to advance a political agenda," the group said in a statement.
However, another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns.
"The thing that most concerns us about this is our friends at the NRA are supporting it, and that could give Democrats cover in the election," said Larry Pratt, a spokesman for the group. "The NRA is making a mistake on this. This is a bill that could pass."
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a strong gun rights supporter, said he hasn't opposed the background check measure in the past and wouldn't expect to do so now.
Gun measures have been known to spin out of control in the freewheeling Senate - where any senator can seek to amend a bill. Any measure there would be looked upon as an opportunity for both gun control advocates eager to enact stronger limits and their foes pushing to weaken existing gun laws.
For Dingell's effort to succeed, Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol likely would have to agree to hold off on a broader gun debate and focus instead on the background-check measure.
"We need to be very careful that we don't intrude on the right of law-abiding and free citizens," Craig said. "We all search for the political screen of, 'Oh, we've got to do something and pass a law, and therefore the world will be a safer place.' Not necessarily."
The NRA bows to our Masters again! Please send your checks to the GOA!! And only send an email to the NRA telling them how disgusted you are.
House Democrats, NRA Seek to Strengthen Background Checks for Gun Purchasers
Saturday, April 21, 2007
WASHINGTON - House Democratic leaders are working with the National Rifle Association to bolster existing laws blocking mentally ill people from buying guns.
Lacking support to enact strong new gun measures even after the Virginia Tech shootings, Democrats are instead resurrecting legislation, which has drawn broad bipartisan support and NRA backing, that would improve the national background check system.
The measure, a version of which has passed the House in two previous Congresses but died in the Senate, could come to a House vote as early as next month. It would require states to supply more-thorough records, including for any mental illness-related court action against a would-be gun purchaser.
Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., a strong NRA ally who has been a leading opponent of most gun control legislation, is negotiating with the group on the background-check bill.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has tapped Dingell and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y. - a leading gun control supporter whose husband was fatally shot by a deranged gunman on the Long Island Railroad - to broker a swift compromise measure that could win passage in the House and Senate.
McCarthy said the measure was the best the Democratic-controlled Congress could do even in the wake of the deadly shooting rampage Monday in which a disturbed gunman killed 32 and then himself.
"We're not going to do anything more on guns - it's just not going to happen. This is a pro-gun Congress," said McCarthy.
Current law bars people judged by a court to be "mentally incompetent" from purchasing firearms, but the federal background check database is incomplete, with many states far behind in automating their records and sending them to the FBI.
Cho Seung-Hui, the 23-year-old gunman in the recent shootings, should have failed his background checks and been barred access to guns after a Virginia special justice found in 2005 that his mental illness made him a danger to himself, the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence said this week.
The measure being negotiated would subject states to possible penalties for failing to provide the information, and authorize new federal grants to help them do so.
"If we give the states what they need to enforce these limits, that's a big step," McCarthy said. "A computer is only as good as the information in it."
The measure has drawn bipartisan interest. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas, an NRA ally, is among the Republicans considering signing on.
Talks on the measure are extremely sensitive, given how little time has passed since Monday's shootings on the Blacksburg, Va., campus.
The legislation has spawned an unusual alliance between gun rights activists, who want background checks to be faster, and gun control advocates, who want them to be more accurate. Still, the NRA and some of its congressional allies are skittish about appearing to support any gun control measure in the wake of the Virginia Tech rampage.
"We have a potential opportunity to get something done that both sides have agreed (on) for a couple of years," said Peter Hamm, a Brady Campaign spokesman. "There's clearly a level of distrust that's as tall as Mount Everest between the two sides in this debate. We watch each other carefully."
Democratic Rep. Richard Boucher, who represents the southwestern Virginia district where the shootings unfolded, said he would not talk about gun policies until next week at the earliest, out of respect for the families of the victims. Like most lawmakers, Boucher wore a maroon and orange ribbon on his lapel Friday, set aside as a day of remembrance for the Virginia Tech tragedy.
Dingell would not comment on the talks Friday, nor would the NRA.
"This is not the time for political discussions, public policy debates or to advance a political agenda," the group said in a statement.
However, another gun rights group, the Gun Owners of America, is adamantly opposed to the legislation. It said the measure would allow the government to trample privacy rights by compiling reams of personal information and potentially bar mentally stable people from buying guns.
"The thing that most concerns us about this is our friends at the NRA are supporting it, and that could give Democrats cover in the election," said Larry Pratt, a spokesman for the group. "The NRA is making a mistake on this. This is a bill that could pass."
Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho, a strong gun rights supporter, said he hasn't opposed the background check measure in the past and wouldn't expect to do so now.
Gun measures have been known to spin out of control in the freewheeling Senate - where any senator can seek to amend a bill. Any measure there would be looked upon as an opportunity for both gun control advocates eager to enact stronger limits and their foes pushing to weaken existing gun laws.
For Dingell's effort to succeed, Republicans and Democrats on both sides of the Capitol likely would have to agree to hold off on a broader gun debate and focus instead on the background-check measure.
"We need to be very careful that we don't intrude on the right of law-abiding and free citizens," Craig said. "We all search for the political screen of, 'Oh, we've got to do something and pass a law, and therefore the world will be a safer place.' Not necessarily."
The NRA bows to our Masters again! Please send your checks to the GOA!! And only send an email to the NRA telling them how disgusted you are.
Comments
Or even better, they could resort to larger means like explosives, to accomplish their goals. These laws never do anything except add to the PIA that law abiding citizens must go through.
http://forums.gunbroker.com/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=243412
quote:Considering the questionable mental state of this murderer, it would not surprise me to see more action on H.R. 297 coming soon. The "NICS Improvement Act of 2007" This is a bill that Mrs. McCarthy (surprise) has introduced for the last three years. So far, it has not come out of committee. (as it shouldn't)
Basically it's a bill that requires states to "make available" records of people that have been adjudicated mentally defective, or have been committed to a mental institution, in a more timely manner than presently. It covers other records as well. It penalizes the states, by withholding federal funding, if they are not in compliance.
This bill didn't go anywhere for the last 2 years, but considering the present situation, I can see this one getting pushed. They will push ANY kind of gun law, using ANY excuse for it.
Now that the NRA is getting behind this bill. [:(!][:(!][:(!]
Looks like the GOA, and REAL gun groups need to take up the fight against the NRA now more than ever.
The NRA would be great if it had 4 million members like him.
He is busily attempting to prevent a catastropic break-up of the ties that bind us as a Nation..trying to desperately stem the tide of tyranny by working within the system.
The Founders spent many years attempting to get the King to see light...and while such as I would not make a good spokesperson for Gun Rights...Fox is moderate enough to be able to converse with the Socialist/Fascist garbage running this country.
Pray the Fox'' succeed with their mission....and never doubt that Fox will be sharing your firing position....with his rifle pointing AWAY from your back.
Fox is good people.
Fox is doing his job...and doing it well.
He is busily attempting to prevent a catastropic break-up of the ties that bind us as a Nation..trying to desperately stem the tide of tyranny by working within the system.
The Founders spent many years attempting to get the King to see light...and while such as I would not make a good spokesperson for Gun Rights...Fox is moderate enough to be able to converse with the Socialist/Fascist garbage running this country.
Pray the Fox'' succeed with their mission....and never doubt that Fox will be sharing your firing position....with his rifle pointing AWAY from your back.
Fox is good people.
Well.....after reading the above I have offically taken Mr. Highbail off my offical sh+t list for his post where he hoped the feds would kick in my door first.
I myself am going to offically come out right here in favor of a tighter gun control law. I don't want any immergrants, legal or illegal, being protected by the 2A whereas they can legally buy firearms. The right of the people to me means citizens who are 100% full fledged citizens. Not some kind of "visitors". Sure, that legal immergrant who shot up VA Tech, if he hadn't had the legal right to purchase those two handguns, would have found another way. Criminals always find another way. However, had Seung-Hui Cho not bought the handguns with the approval of the form 4473 and the blessing of the NICS system, we citizen gun owners would not be facing quite so much heat in regards to the anti-gunners using the VA Tech shooting as reasons why all guns should be outlawed.
I THOUGHT I had cleared that up on the other thread..my remarks being directed at other posters then you...posters that direct their most vile attacks at me...instead of the source of evil in this country.
Trust me on this....I would wish that NO even REMOTELY interested gun-owner would go down in the opening salvos...and you, friend, are a thinking man..not someone I would wish a door-kicking on.
However, had Seung-Hui Cho not bought the handguns with the approval of the form 4473 and the blessing of the NICS system, we citizen gun owners would not be facing quite so much heat in regards to the anti-gunners using the VA Tech shooting as reasons why all guns should be outlawed.
Fox, I disagreee......ANY incident like Va. Tech, Columbine, ect. will result in "heat" coming down on all of us. The fact that he passed the NCIS gives us a means to deflect most of it....
Look at it this way: If the shooter had purchased the gun at a *gasp* gun show, or bought it from a gun runner, the antis could scream "We don't have enough gun control! The methods we are using aren't enough to stop madmen like this!"
The fact that he purchased the gun legally means that the gun lobby can point to the NCIS as failing point, not any particular law on the book. With luck, all that will happen is the NCIS will be strengthened to do the sort of check it was supposed to be doing in the first place.
I consider myself to be pretty much "purist" in terms of gun rights.....but the fact remains this kid was diagnosed as Autistic (at least that is what's being reported) and he was ordered by a court to seek mental help. The package he sent NBC should be enough to convince anyone he was psychotic. His immigrant status is, in my opinion, irrelavent.
It is in no one's interests for a man like this to own a gun.
Apparently 9f above has always been an "honor system" question. I assumed that it was part of the insta-check already, but apparently the architects of the insta-check put the cart before the horse by not building the infrastructure and funding needed for all of these mental health providers to feed back into "the database".
Marc1301, you have nailed it once again. Whomever raised you had their head(s) screwed on real straight.
TR Fox, 100% agree with you, brother. I have never supported armed foreign nationals in our country (permanent resident or otherwise). I figure if they want to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear firearms then they better antee up and become a naturalized U.S. Citizen. Otherwise they should go back to their home country and instigate some change so they can have that right recognized over there (or down there, or wherever).
In general, I oppose the mental health disqualification for firearms purchase. It is my opinion that it has too much potential for abuse. I think everyone goes through stress in their life, sometimes it requires clinical help. It does not mean that you are crazy. Just because you suffer through a child's suicide, a nasty divorce, or a traumatic event (like a mass murder at your university), and you do the RIGHT THING by getting some professional help, does that then mean you are no longer mentally capable to exercise your right to keep and bear arms?
Don't get me wrong, there are some very disturbed people out there, like Mr. Cho. The type of people that need to take their meds everyday or maybe even be locked up someplace for the rest of their lives because they are too dangerous to themselves and, more importantly, those around them. I have a little faith that these people will show signs of their disease early on. I think many of them, if they don't get the help they need, will probably end up in the criminal justice system eventually anyway. They will likely be disqualified from legally buying a gun on that basis alone.
But I do realize that there are the few that will "slip through the cracks". So therefore I think there does have to be some way of identifying these people and giving them some sort of special status, which may include the denial of firearms purchases. The only Constitutional way I can see this happening is if the case for these disturbed individuals' long-term inabilities to function in society is successfully demonstrated to a jury. Essentially a jury trial and conviction. However, upon such a conviction, I believe these individuals should be institutionalized. If someone is indeed "a danger to himself and others", as Mr. Cho was apparently determined to be, I can see no other way to handle such individuals.
As for this issue... I assumed the mental health component of the insta-check was already in place, so if this passes congress then I will probably not be too riled up (incrementalism anyone?). But, as I said, I do disagree with the current premise of the mental health disqualification, at least in the way I understand it to be currently implemented.
-WoundedWolf
Last I checked, the black market doesn't accept Visas or Mastercards. However, if you can go the legal route and get a gun specifically to commit a crime, use a credit card to buy it, and by the time the bill comes due, you're dead along with like 31 others.
Solution: arm as many people as possible, and when this kind of crap happens, they get quickly gunned down.
Prevention is pointless, as human creativity has ways of circumventing the most idiotic and retarded laws, as has been witnessed in more than one instance. It is like nailing a cube of jello to the wall.
I would wager that even some on these boards would never be able to buy another firearm again! We need to watch what the definitions are that will be used, as the scenario I laid out above, would be a huge win for the "anti's"! Folks that are psychotic, manic depressive, bi-polar, etc.,............that is a different story to me, and certainly being institutionalized. Common sense needs to prevail here.
I also agree with the thought process that would dictate to have the protection of our Constitution,...........one must be a naturalized citizen of this country. Not that it will stop anything necessarily, but I personally have always found it to be an afront, to pass on Constitutional rights and protections to people that are not here legally, or are, and do not wish to become full status citizens,IMHO.[;)]
The way things SHOULD work is...NICS, waiting periods, extensive background checks....ALL the trappings of unConstitutional Law we suffer under....SHOULD be applied to foreigners here on our soil...
NOT TO US.
There is probaly NO Constitutional protection extended to 'guns for foreigners'...
Accepting these intrusive checks for citizens blinds one to what SHOULD be....
Actually, fellers....
The way things SHOULD work is...NICS, waiting periods, extensive background checks....ALL the trappings of unConstitutional Law we suffer under....SHOULD be applied to foreigners here on our soil...
NOT TO US.
There is probaly NO Constitutional protection extended to 'guns for foreigners'...
Accepting these intrusive checks for citizens blinds one to what SHOULD be....
it is harder already for a foreigner (including a perm. resident) to obtain a firearm as far as i know, foreign nationals on visa's i believe have to first obtain a hunting license, and they aren't in any way protected by 2A.
now, what would all this accomplish? i don't think the issue is "foreigners" in this case and i think you do want recent immigrants on your side, not the other, and by using a unnecessary set of legislation and PIA for a lawful immigrant to buy a firearm you'd only alienate him/her especially if that legislation is supported by citizens. i don't think you want to go that route, especially for those who are permanent residents.
Want to merely be a parasite, you don't get the Rights of a citizen.
Pretty simple, really...
You want to come over here and jump thru the hoops to become a citizen...the Rights of a citizen will gladly be handed to you.
Want to merely be a parasite, you don't get the Rights of a citizen.
Pretty simple, really...
huh? did you even read what i said? or it simply doesn't register?
I believe what HighBall is saying, is instead of becoming "legal resident aliens", they should become full naturalized citizens, to gain the protections of the US Constitution, and I must say that I agree,........we have far too many of the above, that live their entire lives here, taking advantage of the system,.........and yes!,......some do contribute, but for some reason they don't want to give up being a "national" of the mother country. If the allegiance is to the mother country, one should return there, as we that ARE American Citizens, only have one allegiance, and it isn't to the country that our ancestors came from! In my case, England, and Ireland,..........geez, no wonder I always have inner turmoil with those two blood lines in me![;)]
did you know you have to wait 5 years as a "legal alien"/"permanent resident" before you can get naturalized? i wonder why you all bring up allegiance, something to do with psychological projections maybe? i already know enough people who could have been contributing to the common cause but are now pushed away.
in case someone didn't catch my drift on citizenship and allegiance -- my stance on this is uncompromising: if one has dual citizenship - at least stripping of American citizenship, if you voted in foreign elections while enjoying American citizenship - deportation. nuff?
Edit: Before you get the chance to say what did I have to go through,.........I was born here in the USA, and have lost many family members throughout our line fighting for this country. My roots go back to the Revolutionary War, and are provable. I had great uncles that served in the Pacific islands fighting the Japanese, and one that survived the invasion of Normandy, trying to protect the French "pukes", only to come home mentally destroyed, and die shortly thereafter. Also does anyone that thinks we should allow anything, and everything here, realize how selective that most other countries are, in regards to whom can become a citizen, or even live there?? They all preach to us how we should have open borders,...........my A**,........let me see them propose the same for themselves! I am done with this.
Yes,........I DO realize that. Cho, the VT shooter lived here from 8 years of age to 23,............a bit more than 5, and I would bet, but don't "know", that the parents have never become naturalized citizens. I am not trying to pick a fight with you, but if you are here on legal status, and love this country,.........why would you not go for full citizenship,............most are here far longer than the 5 years! Explain what I do not understand here?
i think it's their choice whether to become citizens or not. i do not think it's the majority of people though, and i think they are a lot less of a problem than those with dual citizenships. i can't answer for your why they would or would not make certain choices, it is not up to me. i also do not think that we should make everyone who lives here take up citizenship. it, not forcing someone to do it, eliminates an even larger percentage of contamination of, already pretty screwy, constituencies with indifferent "voters". besides all of this, just an off-topic add -- the whole citizenship legislation has to be reviewed. it's way to easy to obtain American citizenship nowdays and most people have no regard for it.
quote:
Edit: Before you get the chance to say what did I have to go through,.........I was born here in the USA, and have lost many family members throughout our line fighting for this country. My roots go back to the Revolutionary War, and are provable. I had great uncles that served in the Pacific islands fighting the Japanese, and one that survived the invasion of Normandy, trying to protect the French "pukes", only to come home mentally destroyed, and die shortly thereafter. Also does anyone that thinks we should allow anything, and everything here, realize how selective that most other countries are, in regards to whom can become a citizen, or even live there?? They all preach to us how we should have open borders,...........my A**,........let me see them propose the same for themselves! I am done with this.
was that just a random rant?
If I wished to move to Russia,........what would I have to go through, and could I ever become a citizen? God knows I don't want to, but for the sake of a question?
We are being invaded by Mexico,..............yes, it is our fault for allowing our pandering politicos, of all persuasions, to convince us that it is in our best interests. They fill the jobs that Americans don't want to do. I assume some of that is true, as some of our countrymen, have become lazy, fat slobs, living from others, as bad as any,...........it disgusts me! Have you ever looked at what it takes to become a citizen of Mexico? Same thing from me,...........never would want to, but a ton more restrictive than this country, but the lousy "freaks" criticize us for being too restrictive!
It ultimately is OUR fault here, for allowing every person that wants in here, to stay forever, without having to apply for naturalized status,............I think it should be changed. If you don't want to become a "naturalized" citizen, after a certain amount of time, and to expend any energy, and commitment, then your "visa" should be up, and your happy a**, on your way back home to your mother country. This is my opinion solely,.........and yes the last part was a "rant", although not "random"[;)]
Prevention is pointless, as human creativity has ways of circumventing the most idiotic and retarded laws, as has been witnessed in more than one instance. It is like nailing a cube of jello to the wall.
+1 +1 I agree wholeheartedly. Look at what others have done. You don't have to posses a gun to kill. While I agree I don't want some disturbed freak swinging hot lead, shouldn't those types have a perminant stay in a rubber room? Laws and more laws will not help. An accutely aware populice may however.
..........Freemind, I could not have said it better !
Fox;
I THOUGHT I had cleared that up on the other thread..my remarks being directed at other posters then you...posters that direct their most vile attacks at me...instead of the source of evil in this country.
Trust me on this....I would wish that NO even REMOTELY interested gun-owner would go down in the opening salvos...and you, friend, are a thinking man..not someone I would wish a door-kicking on.
Well, I bet you did clear it up. Sadly I did not return to that topic and was not able to read you later post. But thanks for the info and I no longer have a hitman looking for you.
So THAT is why I had to SSS...till right now >>>>
The thing I love about TR Fox is that despite all of the doodoo he gets on this forum he still has a sense of humor.[:D]
SneakyRussisan, so what if it takes over 5 years to become a naturalized citizen of this country? You have been here for like 15 years and talk about moving to CANADA! I believe the Constitutional rights and protections are a reward to those that actually have the marbles to go through the effort to become a CITIZEN OF THIS NATION!
I know for a fact that a person can become a PERMANENT RESIDENT in less than a year! When I see people that are "permanent resident" status for 20 years it makes me want to puke! Most of them are just saving their dough so they can ship it back to whatever 3rd rate country they came from when they retire.
The rights and responsibilities of being a U.S. Citizen are not for the flighty and irresponsible. To be a naturalized citizen of this country you have to EARN it! We have enough trouble instilling this into our lazy natural-born children, let alone some freeloading FOREIGNER.
-WoundedWolf
quote:But thanks for the info and I no longer have a hitman looking for you.
SneakyRussisan, so what if it takes over 5 years to become a naturalized citizen of this country? You have been here for like 15 years and talk about moving to CANADA! I believe the Constitutional rights and protections are a reward to those that actually have the marbles to go through the effort to become a CITIZEN OF THIS NATION!
me?? huh? move to CANADA? wth are you talking about?
quote:
I know for a fact that a person can become a PERMANENT RESIDENT in less than a year! When I see people that are "permanent resident" status for 20 years it makes me want to puke! Most of them are just saving their dough so they can ship it back to whatever 3rd rate country they came from when they retire.
i highly doubt it, however i am sure there's a percentage of people that do so.
quote:
The rights and responsibilities of being a U.S. Citizen are not for the flighty and irresponsible. To be a naturalized citizen of this country you have to EARN it! We have enough trouble instilling this into our lazy natural-born children, let alone some freeloading FOREIGNER.
-WoundedWolf
uhm. if that was in any way directed at me, could you please be a bit more careful reading my posts. other than that i concur. and i probably understand and see the problem a lot more than most of people who post here.
As for the comment regarding our natural-born children vs. foreigners, take that as you will, I feel it is true. We have a lot of freeloading "permanent resident" foreigners in this country and we have a lot of freeloading natural-born citizens too. The freeloading citizens are OUR PROBLEM, the foreigners ARE NOT!
Okay, sneakyrussian, first my apologies, I confused you with a post that was made by Tigerclaw_x. He is a former Soviet citizen that spoke of moving to Canada. There have been a lot of new faces around here this month and I got confused, so again, I apologize.
no problem. i just didn't get it
quote:
As for the comment regarding our natural-born children vs. foreigners, take that as you will, I feel it is true. We have a lot of freeloading "permanent resident" foreigners in this country and we have a lot of freeloading natural-born citizens too. The freeloading citizens are OUR PROBLEM, the foreigners ARE NOT!
i agree. i might've mentioned it already, but citizenship is too easily obtained here. i think it should be only granted to foreigners after a service to the country, possibly something Heinlein has suggested in "starship troopers", but it seems like a lot more people like this idea. myself, being a foreign born, i would welcome it too. otherwise this country has been turning into a third world dump like mexico or russia or china.
[:0][:0]
So THAT is why I had to SSS...till right now >>>>
Uh....yeah....you are....correct.....that is....."why".
WAIT A MINUTE! What the he!! is "SSS"?