What a short memory you have. Remember arguing about the so-called gun show loophole? You acted like you could not be bothered to even take a brief look at the law and instead made up bizarre "facts" and hoped no one would notice they made no sense at all.
Haha, no, that's not what happened at all. To begin, google "gun show loophole," and read the results. In the least it should be clear that I didn't make that up.
But, of course, I showed you the damn statute that contained the loophole. Here's the relevant law once again:
U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_shows_in_the_United_States
I have no idea what your point is. There it is, there's the law. I didn't make anything up.
The Brady Act, passed in 1994, was meant to require background checks to purchase firearms. You're welcome to provide some evidence that Brady INTENDED the "loophole" to exist, but the evidence shows clearly that the gun-show exception was not the purpose of the Brady legislation. It was a way of avoiding the new statutory requirements. The older law was broadened in practice to escape the new strict requirements.
You have such an ingenuous faith in the legal code. You seem to act like everything that appears therein was writ by the hand of god. These laws are the result of competitive Democracy. When a gun law is passed, the Democrats (in the past) tried to make them as strong as possible, the Republicans tried to weaken them as much as possible. The result is sometimes good compromise, but all too often it's the creation of loopholes. Brady and his legislative supporters wanted all firearm purchases to include a background check. This did not come to pass, whatever you want to call it.
This "making stuff up" nonsense appears to be pure projection on your part.
I was not getting that technical. I merely stated that Vargas should obey the law instead of acting like he was entitled to break it. And yes I would obtain the services of a lawyer if I was accused of a crime; hopefully one that knows the law instead of making stuff up.
Yeah, the good ones are the best at "making stuff up."
For you to read that article about Vargas and conclude that he was "acting like he was entitled" to break the law makes me seriously question your reading comprehension skills. Please quote the portion of his story that you think indicates some form of entitlement.
The entire article is a painful retelling of the shame and humiliation he has felt since learning his Grandpa obtained fake documents for him. Once again you are projecting a whole bunch of nonsense into the text you read.
So the laws that prohibit using a false passport and visa to enter the country and forbid altering a SSN card are mistakes? That is what Vargas did. I think that laws were intended to protect us from those like Vargas.
Yes, please protect us from Pulitzer Prize winners. We can't have these nasty illegals doing our jobs better than we do it.
For the 20,000,000th time, the question is not whether he broke a law, it's whether we should punish that violation harshly. We should not. You have no explanation for why deportation is preferable to a fine. You just caw over and over, "he broke the law, he broke the law."
Yes, good job. You get a Scoobie Snack.
We do not need a judge to tell us to simply obey the law. It really is that simple. Vargas chooses not to.
Wow. This is such a childish interaction at this point. You betray such a naivete about legal process that it's difficult to know where to begin.
Let's try this: The taking of a life without justification is illegal. Does that mean each of the following circumstances must be treated EXACTLY alike:
1) A buys a knife, waits in B's bushes, then stabs him when he comes home from work.
2) A has a knife, gets into an argument with B, stabs him.
3) A has a knife, runs into B at a bar. B brags loudly that he raped A's sister the night before and left her naked in the woods. A, whose sister has been missing, stabs B in the chest.
4) A is holding a knife. While running, he trips, stabbing B as he falls forward.
Do we just give all those folks the electric chair because it's "wrong to kill." Or do we have trials where the evidence is examined and proper punishment is determined?
We don't need judges and juries to make that determination? It's just a broken law, simple. You need to publish your radical theory of the legal system. It will really save all of us time studying for the bar exam. No more of that nasty "legal reasoning" or "rational argumentation" to deal with. Just a simple yes/no answer to everything.
If the punishment is intended to fit the crime, then the first thing an illegal alien like Vargas needs to do to atone for his mistakes is to leave the country and apply to enter again. There are laws that deal with this. Let him start by following the law like the rest of us who choose not to break it.
This is just question begging. You're offering no rationale for the severe punishment, save the technicality of breaking the law. We don't have to punish all transgressions equally. We, as thinking creatures, can examine the facts and determine the proper sanction.
In this case, he should pay a fine for his wrongful behavior and we should keep this highly accomplished, highly productive individual in our nation.
There is no reasoning behind your argument, it's a bald assertion: "He broke the law, he should be deported."
"There are better solutions."
"No-break law, deport."
I get it. It's a silly point. It's bad for the country, it's bad for Vargas. There is no law that mandates deportation. There is prosecutorial discretion, even under our currently rigid system. Your proposed punishment is ridiculous.
More hyperbole, I'm not surprised.
Haha, yeah, hyperbole. Why would I think someone living in this country was living in this country? I'd be willing to bet this guy has paid more taxes over his life than you have. Maybe we should boot you out and keep him, it's the more practical solution.
Vargas can choose to leave the USA, but he chooses not to.
And he shouldn't have to. He's paid into the system, it would be unjust enrichment on our part to take all the money he paid into social security and medicare without giving him the benefit. If you refund him every sent he paid in payroll tax, you'd have a better argument for deportation. Still a stupid one, but better.
His family went to great illegal lengths to get him to the USA. They committed fraud
And they should pay a fine. You're just repeating yourself. It appears you're not capable of following the actual argument. No one denies that a wrong occurred, legally speaking. The question is merely one of proper sanction.
That is retarded. You want criminals in the USA just because they can reproduce?
Haha. That sums up your approach quite nicely. Re-read what I wrote a few times, or just until you understand why that's a uniquely hilarious mistake on your part.
I'll give you a hint: the "re" was your creation.
