Three 3rd graders, three adults killed by shooter at Nashville elementary school

[Son of A Tiger 561]

37 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

This is just Tucker Carlson level imagination.  Why would the Chinese govt. need to sneak people in thru Mexico?  They have multitudes of cargo ships sailing into ports daily.

Sorry not just Tucker. The guys on the border note an ever increasing influx of Chinese entering illegally. How do you/we know some of them aren't spies?

Spike seen in Chinese migrants illegally entering the US (newsnationnow.com)

Edited April 1, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[TexasTiger 13,006]

5 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Sorry not just Tucker. The guys on the border note an ever increasing influx of Chinese entering illegally. How do you/we know some of them aren't spies?

Spike seen in Chinese migrants illegally entering the US (newsnationnow.com)

Pretty inefficient way to get non-English speaking spies to the USA, don’t you think?

[AU9377 5,035]

10 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

If he can vote, be drafted and go into battle then yes he should be able to buy a gun.

Are there no limitations that he/she should face?  An 18 year old high school student, known gang member that spent 3 years in a youth detention center from the ages of 12-15 for participating in an armed robbery should be able to legally buy as many guns as he wants according to that line of thought.

We cannot have an orderly society with no control.  What happened to law and order? I don't know anyone in law enforcement that feels safer knowing they are out numbered and out armed.

[AU9377 5,035]

13 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Sorry not just Tucker. The guys on the border note an ever increasing influx of Chinese entering illegally. How do you/we know some of them aren't spies?

Spike seen in Chinese migrants illegally entering the US (newsnationnow.com)

If China sends spies, I can assure you that they will be fluent English speakers.  Think.

[TexasTiger 13,006]

2 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

If China sends spies, I can assure you that they will be fluent English speakers.  Think.

They’re playing the long game! It’s an ancient country! Their children’s children will be fluent citizens from Ivy League schools and then— they will spy! C’mon. Think! 😉

[AU9377 5,035]

21 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They’re playing the long game! It’s an ancient country! Their children’s children will be fluent citizens from Ivy League schools and then— they will spy! C’mon. Think! 😉

Wax on Wax off... it is so clear now..... lol

[Son of A Tiger 561]

38 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

Pretty inefficient way to get non-English speaking spies to the USA, don’t you think?

 

Surely you aren't naive enough to believe they really can't speak English. Glad you aren't spy detector.😁😁

[Son of A Tiger 561]

35 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

Are there no limitations that he/she should face? Sure

An 18 year old high school student, known gang member that spent 3 years in a youth detention center from the ages of 12-15 for participating in an armed robbery should be able to legally buy as many guns as he wants according to that line of thought. No

We cannot have an orderly society with no control. I agree 100% and we have little control of our borders.

What happened to law and order? Good question. Ask some cops in big cities with Democratic mayors or idiots like Gaston in California for example.

I don't know anyone in law enforcement that feels safer knowing they are out numbered and out armed. Me neither so why are liberal Democratic cities, etc, defunding police?

 

[Son of A Tiger 561]

41 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

If China sends spies, I can assure you that they will be fluent English speakers.  Think.

Exactly but they will also be able to easily pretend they don't.

 

[TexasTiger 13,006]

32 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

Surely you aren't naive enough to believe they really can't speak English. Glad you aren't spy detector.😁😁

You think they drop spies off in Ecuador and have them brave dangerous jungles and all of Central American before getting to the Mexican border? That’s what your source indicated.

[Son of A Tiger 561]

I don't know do you know that they don't? Are you comfortable having Chinese spies coming in illegally regardless of the path they take and willing to let even a few get into our country through the southern border?

Heck they may be hiring cartel guys from all over Central America to spy for them. Big money talks.

Edited April 1, 2023 by Son of A Tiger

[Leftfield 2,653]

On 3/31/2023 at 9:34 AM, I_M4_AU said:

I have no idea if the government has been established further along in gun development they would have treated the gun issue much differently.  That is just speculation on your part with little evidence if that would be the case.

Lol...so speculation on your part (in your response to tomcat)....

"The government had to regulate the operation of a motor vehicle soon after their invention.  If the gun would have been invented after the formation of the government, I would guarantee it would have been highly regulated and, probably outlawed by now."

....is suddenly speculation on my part? 

In regards to your discussion with Titan, I was simply pointing out your reply to him....

------------------

  On 3/30/2023 at 2:39 PM, TitanTiger said:

So then the issue really isn't what the 2nd Amendment says at all.  You already support the banning of certain arms.  All we're debating now is where to draw the line.

Basically.  My contention is that the gun grab is over.  Find another way.

-----------------

.....which proves that you don't actually care what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was, you're just going to use the gun rights interpretation of it because it supports your position on the banning of assault weapons.

 

On 3/31/2023 at 9:34 AM, I_M4_AU said:

I think so and the emotion you and others are showing....

Yeah, I guess you're right....I've clearly been hysterical about the situation. Darn it, just can't get control of myself.

 

On 3/31/2023 at 9:34 AM, I_M4_AU said:

...is equivalent of pugging your ears and saying LALALALALA.

I've noticed the far-righters on this board really like using the "rubber vs glue" tactic. I mean really like it. Please keep it going....really reinforces the intelligence and maturity of your arguments.

And if rest of your post was meant to prove you're not paranoid, it didn't work. Particularly when you included this gem...

On 3/31/2023 at 9:34 AM, I_M4_AU said:

 Biden is as tyrannical as any President in modern history. 

 

On 3/31/2023 at 9:34 AM, I_M4_AU said:

Why are you so trustworthy in government?  What was the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?  To prevent tyranny? 

Just because I trust the government more than you doesn't mean I trust it completely, but no, I don't think it's going to suddenly come after every gun in the country. Not only is that impractical were they to try, there's tons of people on the entire political spectrum that don't support a full ban. If it were to ever happen, it would be a long time from now.

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to have a militia to protect the new government, back before we had the Armed Forces as we know them today. Was not meant to be a threat to our own government. That wouldn't even make sense. Sure, it's a great thought to say it prevents the government from forcing laws on those who see them as unjust, but think about what that means....that obviously would give a person the ability to refuse to comply with any law they don't like, whether the law is truly just or not. 

Taken further, once you get a large group of like-minded people that have weaponry capable of preventing them from complying with laws they don't like, what's to stop them from overthrowing the government and establishing their own? What if there are multiple groups like that, and they can't agree on who should lead, so they're fighting each other as well as the government. Does that sound like the makings of a stable, modern democracy to you? What competent government would set up the mechanism for its own violent downfall?

 

 

 

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

.....which proves that you don't actually care what the original intent of the 2nd Amendment was, you're just going to use the gun rights interpretation of it because it supports your position on the banning of assault weapons.

You’re confused as usual.  I do no support banning assault weapons.  Now if you meant it supports my position against the banning of assault weapons it would make more sense.

I do care about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment it is just that fully automatic weapons are not worth the fight to get them back.  I am wanting to hold the line at where we are and not let any more gun grab be approved.  Especially when the problem with violence is not the weapon’s fault it is the fault of the perp.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

really reinforces the intelligence and maturity of your arguments.

I can only assume you have no come back about the fire rate of the AR-15 to continue my argument which does show your intelligence and maturity.  Oops there I go again.

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

Purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to have a militia to protect the new government, back before we had the Armed Forces as we know them today. Was not meant to be a threat to our own government. That wouldn't even make sense. Sure, it's a great thought to say it prevents the government from forcing laws on those who see them as unjust, but think about what that means....that obviously would give a person the ability to refuse to comply with any law they don't like, whether the law is truly just or not. 

Taken further, once you get a large group of like-minded people that have weaponry capable of preventing them from complying with laws they don't like, what's to stop them from overthrowing the government and establishing their own? What if there are multiple groups like that, and they can't agree on who should lead, so they're fighting each other as well as the government. Does that sound like the makings of a stable, modern democracy to you? What competent government would set up the mechanism for its own violent downfall?

Didn’t this happen in 1861?  America survived and kept the 2nd Amendment, didn’t outlaw the repeating rifles and Gatling guns.  Time marched on.  We are at a crossroads at this time and I pray it settles down.  

Edited April 2, 2023 by I_M4_AU

[DKW 86 7,440]

7 hours ago, Son of A Tiger said:

If he can vote, be drafted and go into battle then yes he should be able to buy a gun.

Maybe not an AR-15 that can easily be made into a fully automatic rifle that no one needs for sport nor hunting.

[Leftfield 2,653]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You’re confused as usual.  I do no support banning assault weapons.  Now if you meant it supports my position against the banning of assault weapons it would make more sense.

I do care about the original intent of the 2nd Amendment it is just that fully automatic weapons are not worth the fight to get them back.  I am wanting to hold the line at where we are and not let any more gun grab be approved.  Especially when the problem with violence is not the weapon’s fault it is the fault of the perp.

I can only assume you have no come back about the fire rate of the AR-15 to continue my argument which does show your intelligence and maturity.  Oops there I go again.

I ask this only half kidding....are you drunk? Because your entire reply was mostly non-sensical in the context of what I posted. It's either that, or you've taken to the modern Republican method of gaslighting, because it sure seems like you're trying to make me or anyone else who reads this think you didn't say the actual quotes I just referred to.

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

 Especially when the problem with violence is not the weapon’s fault it is the fault of the perp.

Ah, yes. The age old cry of the 2nd Amendment absolutist. The same people who can never effectively answer this question, even in this thread: why not legalize every weapon then? @TitanTiger has asked this several times.

"Yeah, bombs are powerful, but it's the person's fault when they explode, not the bomb. If we had better mental health care in this country, Oklahoma City would never have happened! You can't take away my right to defend myself with explosives just because some criminal blew some people up!" Doesn't that sound ridiculous?

 

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Didn’t this happen in 1861?  America survived and kept the 2nd Amendment, didn’t outlaw the repeating rifles and Gatling guns.  Time marched on.  We are at a crossroads at this time and I pray it settles down.  

So you're saying that in 1861 a large group of private citizens banded together to overthrow our government?

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

9 hours ago, Leftfield said:

So you're saying that in 1861 a large group of private citizens banded together to overthrow our government?

I am saying in 1861 a group of private citizens banded together to separate themselves from the present government because they didn’t like the laws of that government.  It is similar to the ramblings you posed as a possibility.

[Leftfield 2,653]

44 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

I am saying in 1861 a group of private citizens banded together to separate themselves from the present government because they didn’t like the laws of that government.  It is similar to the ramblings you posed as a possibility.

So their state governments had nothing to do with it?

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

29 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

So their state governments had nothing to do with it?

Of course the state governments had something to do with it.  What difference does that make in your mind?  Each state can make laws concerning gun ownership.  Several states have overreached and has been overruled by the SCOTUS.

We have a lot of division of philosophies between states right now based on politics.  There is very little common ground in America right now.  

[Mikey 16,723]

19 hours ago, AU9377 said:

This is just Tucker Carlson level imagination.  Why would the Chinese govt. need to sneak people in thru Mexico?  They have multitudes of cargo ships sailing into ports daily.

The Chinese government has nothing to do with it. These people are escaping China and illegally entering the United States as individuals. Just like the multi-millions of other illegals the Biden administration refuses to stop. Each and every one who wades across the river, regardless of country of origin, makes the cartels richer.

 

[aubiefifty 16,903]

18 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Are there no limitations that he/she should face?  An 18 year old high school student, known gang member that spent 3 years in a youth detention center from the ages of 12-15 for participating in an armed robbery should be able to legally buy as many guns as he wants according to that line of thought.

We cannot have an orderly society with no control.  What happened to law and order? I don't know anyone in law enforcement that feels safer knowing they are out numbered and out armed.

they do not care. my personal opinion is if you want to play with military grade weapons you should have to join the military. life is sacred until it comes to gun control and then all of a sudden it is not. because you cannot stand for the rule of law that gets people killed daily life is not sacred anymore. ask our school kids who are scared to go to school now. and those gun drills will traumatize children for years to come. i still remember the fear i was taught during the cuba thing and the cold war learning how to crawl under a desk and covering up. and you gun fanatics can save your time because i will not change my mind. hell forget russia or china we are our own worst nightmare and it sucks. it is like a third world country now. you can get killed shopping or praying or going to school among other situations. but feel free to answer if you must. but you will not change my mind. our children are sacred and we have thrown them to the wolves................

[aubiefifty 16,903]

7 minutes ago, Mikey said:

The Chinese government has nothing to do with it. These people are escaping China and illegally entering the United States as individuals. Just like the multi-millions of other illegals the Biden administration refuses to stop. Each and every one who wades across the river, regardless of country of origin, makes the cartels richer.

 

your statement is just not true mikey.

 

Unlawful entries along U.S.-Mexico border plummeted in January after expansion of migrant expulsions

Camilo Montoya-Galvez

February 2, 2023 / 10:26 AM / CBS News

The number of migrants apprehended by U.S. Border Patrol after illegally crossing the southern border dropped by roughly 40% in January, when the Biden administration announced a revamped strategy to discourage unlawful crossings, according to preliminary government data obtained by CBS News.

Border Patrol agents recorded approximately 130,000 apprehensions of migrants who entered the U.S. between official ports of entry along the border with Mexico, compared to the near-record 221,000 apprehensions in December, the internal preliminary figures show. The number of Border Patrol apprehensions in November and October totaled 207,396 and 204,874, respectively.

The statistics indicate that January saw the lowest levels of illegal migration along the U.S.-Mexico border since President Biden's first full month in office in February 2021. The figures do not include migrants and asylum-seekers processed at official border crossings.

Senior U.S. officials said the sharp drop in illegal entries last month stemmed from the Biden administration's expansion of a strategy it launched last year to reduce the number of Venezuelans entering U.S. border custody.

In early January, the administration announced it would use a pandemic-related authority known as Title 42 to swiftly expel Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians and Venezuelans to Mexico without allowing them to seek asylum if they attempted to cross into the U.S. without legal permission.

Before the announcement, Mexico generally only accepted Title 42 returns of its citizens and migrants from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and, after October 2022, Venezuela. The repressive governments in Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, which are sanctioned by the U.S., have for their part severely limited or rejected U.S. deportations of their citizens.

Officials simultaneously announced that the U.S. would allow up to 30,000 migrants from these four countries to fly into the U.S. on a monthly basis if Americans agreed to sponsor their arrival. The administration is also allowing a limited number of migrants in northern Mexico to request a humanitarian exemption to Title 42 at ports of entry through a mobile app.

Migrants wait at the U.S.-Mexico border on Jan. 8, 2023, in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico. Christian Torres/Anadolu Agency via Getty Images

While migrant arrivals along the U.S. southern border have historically dipped in January due to a holiday season lull and colder temperatures, the drop over the past few weeks has been most pronounced among migrants from countries whose citizens are subject to the new procedures, government statistics show.

The daily average of Cubans, Nicaraguans, Haitians and Venezuelans crossing the southern border illegally has dropped below 200, down over 90% from a peak of 3,367 in December, according to the government data.

It's unclear, however, whether the downward trend will continue in the coming months. The Biden administration has itself conceded that the policies announced last month are stopgap measures prompted by Congress' failure to reform U.S. immigration laws since the 1990s.

The strategy's deterrence component relies on a pandemic order the Biden administration tried to end last spring and that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials have said they no longer can justify on public health grounds. 

The CDC's move to terminate Title 42 in May 2022 was halted after Republican state officials convinced a federal judge in Louisiana to block the termination on technical grounds. Title 42 was again set to end in late December, but the Supreme Court, at the request of the Republican-led states, suspended a lower court ruling that had declared the policy illegal.

Those cases could be rendered moot on May 11, when the Biden administration is expected to terminate the national public health emergency over COVID-19. The CDC said in its Title 42 order that the expulsions would be halted if the health emergency was lifted.

On Wednesday, a bipartisan group of senators reintroduced a bill that would prolong Title 42 for at least two months after the emergency declaration expires and require the Department of Homeland Security to submit a plan to Congress on how it will manage migration after the expulsions are halted.

Biden administration officials said they have been preparing for Title 42's end for the past year, including by expanding a process known as expedited removal that allows U.S. border officials to rapidly deport migrants who don't ask for asylum or who fail to establish credible fear of persecution.

The administration is also planning to publish a regulation that would generally disqualify migrants from asylum if they do not ask for protection in third countries on their way to the U.S. Those subject to the policy could be deported without a court hearing.

Mr. Biden's strategy is also under legal jeopardy. Twenty states led by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit last month seeking to halt the sponsorship program for migrants from Cuba, Nicaragua, Haiti and Venezuela. The states argued the policy is an illegal expansion of the parole authority, the law the Biden administration is using to allow those arriving under the program to live and work legally in the U.S. on a temporary basis.

The Biden administration has said the lawsuit, if successful, would fuel more illegal border crossings since Mexico made its decision to accept migrants returned by the U.S. contingent on the U.S. fulfilling its pledge to take in 30,000 migrants each month via the sponsorship program.

"These expanded border enforcement measures are working," Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas said last week. "It is incomprehensible that some states who stand to benefit from these highly effective enforcement measures are seeking to block them and cause more irregular migration at our southern border."

President Biden walks along the U.S.-Mexico border fence in El Paso, Texas, on Jan. 8, 2023. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

In addition to the constant criticism from Republican lawmakers who have accused Mr. Biden of not fully enforcing U.S. immigration laws, his administration has recently faced pushback from some Democratic allies angry with the policies that limit access to the asylum system.

The proposal to disqualify migrants from asylum in particular has garnered strong opposition from progressive advocates and dozens of Democrats in Congress, who have noted the policy is similar to a regulation the Trump administration enacted in 2019 before it was struck down in federal court.

Andrea Flores, who was a National Security Council official until late 2021, criticized the reliance on Trump-era measures to manage migration.

"Any border management policy that relies on a short-term public health authority is not a sustainable solution to mass migration," said Flores, who now serves as chief counsel to Democratic Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey. "A single weather or political event could happen next month, Title 42 could disappear, and the whole situation could change in an instant."

But the Biden administration has argued the measures are needed to address the unprecedented migration crisis the U.S. government and local communities along the southern border have faced over the past year. 

In fiscal year 2022, federal officials along the southern border stopped migrants over 2.3 million times, a record high. While Title 42 was used to carry out over 1 million expulsions during that period, hundreds of thousands of migrants were allowed to stay in the country and submit asylum requests before an overwhelmed court system.

The humanitarian crisis along the U.S. southern border is part of a mass displacement event in the Western Hemisphere that has seen millions of people uprooted from their homes by poverty, hunger, violence and authoritarian rule.

Over the past year, hundreds of thousands of Cubans, Nicaraguans and Venezuelans have journeyed to the U.S. border, fleeing economic instability and political repression in their homelands. Thousands of Haitians have also sought to reach the U.S. in hopes of escaping the political turmoil and gang violence plaguing the destitute Caribbean nation.

Camilo Montoya-Galvez

Camilo Montoya-Galvez is the immigration reporter at CBS News. Based in Washington, he covers immigration policy and politics.

Twitter

Thanks for reading CBS NEWS.

[Mikey 16,723]

19 hours ago, AU9377 said:

Except that he has never come close to suggesting that and he inherited a monumental mess.

Biden didn't inherit a mess. He took something that was functioning and deliberately broke it. Illegal border crossings, FY2020, 400,600. Illegal border crossings 2022, 2.76 million. It's Biden's border catastrophe and his alone. He was so hell-bent on reversing everything Trump did that he threw the baby out with the bath water. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/04/after-surging-in-2019-migrant-apprehensions-at-u-s-mexico-border-fell-sharply-in-fiscal-2020-2/

Same deal with choking down America's energy industry. All he accomplished was to finance Russia's war by increasing the value and quantity of the Russian's oil exports. PS: The Russians don't care about the environment. U.S. produced oil and gas are cleaner, but Biden wants Russia to prosper so...

Same deal with refusing to issue permits for rare earth mining in America. All that did was make us dependent on China for these things and making us finance China's military buildup. Looks like Biden prefers rare earth produced by slave labor in China to providing environmentally sound jobs in the United States.

Oh well, they don't call him Bungling Biden for nothing, it's a name he has earned.

 

[Mikey 16,723]

22 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

your statement is just not true mikey.

What's not true? Read my previous post.

24 minutes ago, aubiefifty said:

Border Patrol agents recorded approximately 130,000 apprehensions of migrants who entered the U.S. between official ports of entry along the border with Mexico,

130,000 in one month? That's something to brag about? Trump's last year in office the total was 400,600 for the YEAR.

[Leftfield 2,653]

45 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course the state governments had something to do with it.  What difference does that make in your mind? 

Are you seriously telling me you don't see the difference between a private militia and a group of states seceding to form their own government? Is your reality matrix really that out of whack?

Oh, wait, I forgot. We're talking about the War of Northern Aggression. I need to be looking at this through a completely different prism. Well then....fight on, brother! The South shall rise again! Deo Vindice!

[I_M4_AU 7,987]

3 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Are you seriously telling me you don't see the difference between a private militia and a group of states seceding to form their own government? Is your reality matrix really that out of whack?

Oh, wait, I forgot. We're talking about the War of Northern Aggression. I need to be looking at this through a completely different prism. Well then....fight on, brother! The South shall rise again! Deo Vindice!

You really like to twist things don’t you?  You brought up the possibility of a militia of like minded people disagreeing with the government.

14 hours ago, Leftfield said:

Taken further, once you get a large group of like-minded people that have weaponry capable of preventing them from complying with laws they don't like, what's to stop them from overthrowing the government and establishing their own?

I mentioned it was what happened in 1861, which very similar to your scenario.  If each state has a militia of private citizens that agree with several states of like minded people, the result was what we saw in 1861.

It really doesn’t matter what the issue was over does it?  To try to paint me as a Confederate sympathizer is ludicrous on its face.  You should really grow up.