Sorry @Toefoot , just going by NRA logic. So if you're up to speed with the subject, it's the NRA and supporters that come to this conclusion.
The argument for guns it that regulations don't stop those who wish to commit a crime, so no point in regulation, just scrap gun laws or not to introduce any. I was watching a YouTube video on the construction on the USA/Mexico border. It stated that the wall/fence won't keep the most determined out. So getting into the mind set of an American gun owner, there's equally in no point in having the wall because it doesn't stop all illegals. So you can't support the gun and wall argument, unless they want to contradict themselves.
So in your mind, "supporting guns" (your quote) and "just scrap gun laws or not to introduce any" are synonymous? Gosh, I guess that YouTube creator knows everything then. We should scrap it and dig a channel. Those seem pretty effective at keeping unwanted illegals in Calais and not in the UK. Does the wall have any affect on legal border crossings at all? Are all proposed gun laws Constitutional, effective, enforceable and necessary?
No, the quote about not having gun laws because criminals won't heed them are by the gun owners. The comment in the video was by Aaron Hull, ASCBP EL Pasco sector chief. He didn't make the video. The wall is there to keep immigrants out, the cost, patrolling, regulating etc.. As it won't keep all immigrants out, then logic would suggest not to increase efforts, not to increase the wall or regulate on who's crossing the border. Or is it you want guns with one standard and no immigrants by another? Just really what fits the gun agenda?
I honestly don't see what supporting the wall has to do with supporting the 2nd Amendment. Please explain.
Thank you for explaining the intent of your comparison, however, I don't see how they are related as the wall is intended to address immigration and the glut of proposed gun bans are intended to eliminate private gun ownership.
A wall between Mexico and America will accomplish nothing. Same as putting up a wall around a burning building to keep people from escaping the fire, rather than putting out the fire and aiding the victims. If the situation in Mexico were normal, people would not be in a hurry to leave.
Even constructing more miles of fence along the US/Mexico border has resulted in fewer illegal immigrants:
How long is the wall in Israel, and does it have hundreds of miles of unprotected crossings where there is no wall?
First, I don’t see why they are mutually exclusive. Second, Yes I support guns, No I don’t support the wall. OTOH, I do support controlling illegal immigration. I just think the wall is an inefficient and very expensive way to do it.
The wall on the southern border (between Israel and Egypt) is 152 miles. The West Bank barrier is 277 miles long but is incomplete. There are places where Palestinians can easily cross into Israel. The above graph only refers to illegal migration across the southern border. Walls work. Why would the East German government bother to construct the Berlin Wall if they knew that anyone could easily cross the border at anytime they liked despite the wall?
It’s helps when they murder anyone crossing regardless of age or gender. Is that what you are suggesting? Why not just arrest anyone who hires, employs, harbors, rents to or otherwise supports illegal immigration? No jobs and no place to live means most will self-deport. All they have to do is turn themselves in for a free ticket home. The rest would easily be mopped up with a reward program for anyone turning in an illegal. That’s be a helluva lot cheaper and more effectiven than a single line of defense costing the taxpayers billions of dollars a year forever.
If the wall in Berlin or the wall between East and West Germany had a 100 kilometer gap where the Stasi couldn't patrol, and people were trying to get in, not out, how effective would the wall in either place have been. The Tohono O’odham Nation is not going to allow any wall to be built on tribal land.
Just need to clarify, the intent on gun regulation is to reduce gun deaths, to increase safety. The argument against that is that criminals won't comply so no point in having gun regulation. Not all immigrants will comply with the regulations at the border wall and still cross. So no point in having border crossing regulations.
I guess if the regulations don't work they want a wall. A actual physical barrier. As long as people are willing to straw purchase and gun shops aren't truck proof, we can't really stop criminals from getting guns. Yes, the wall is a stupid idea.
You could take this analogy further. Vehicle regulations don't stop the criminals from using them as a getaway car, to run people over etc.. So just do away with vehicle regulations and don't bother to bring any more in.
Are vehicle regulations designed to keep criminals from using cars as escapes or weapons? I've never said to do away with all firearm regulations. I think the ones that are ineffective or unconstitutional need to be revoked, and any new proposals should be Constitutional, effective, enforceable and necessary.
Laws = pieces of paper Gun Free zone sign = piece of aluminium Wall= tangible barrier. use of force by gun = tangible barrier. Some of these things are not like the others, some of these things are kind of the same.
The point with a wall is for a couple reasons: a. A wall prevents the border crossing in the first place. Once they've crossed the border now we have a problem with all of the deportation and the "snatching babies from mother's breast" bull****. b. Without a wall, using electronic fencing, means they're still crossing the border, and still requires thousands of border control officials to hunt them down and physically arrest them. We are best served by them never getting across the border in the first place, and nothing is going to do that better than 30 ft. high walls. To see the effectiveness of that approach, all you have to do is look at San Diego and how effective that was. The wall is not more expensive than all the deportation, housing, legal costs, drug and human trafficking costs, and the 100 billion a year we already spend on illegal aliens. Not even close.