The End-times For USA

“Gun ownership has traditionally been associated with the right wing in America but the election of Donald Trump has prompted some left-wingers to join gun clubs – and even start preparing for the collapse of society.”
 
See Why US liberals are now buying guns too
Owning firearms for defence does not make a lot of sense for most people but the election of Trump and his inspiration of deplorables has now inspired many others to choose to own firearms for defence. Those who were too lazy to vote against Trump are unwilling to hope he goes away next election or doesn’t burn down the house so they are hedging their bets by arming themselves.

In this situation the best outcome we can expect is a more violent society while the worst outcome is uncivil war. Trump likes to break things and he seems to have cracked the civil society wide open.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in family, firearms, politics and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to The End-times For USA

  1. Kurkosdr wrote, “That’s why they are setting up legal defense funds for illegal immigrants and planning state-level laws to prevent enforcement.”

    Legal defences don’t prevent deportation. USA is a country based on written laws. Either USA follows the law or it disintegrates. Further, state law never preempts federal law. e.g. legalizing marijuana in a state does not prevent DEA from doing its job. Neither can a state grant citizenship by issuing a driver’s licence or accepting a student into a school.

  2. Kurkosdr says:

    They don’t prevent the feds from deporting anyone.

    Oh really? That’s why they are setting up legal defense funds for illegal immigrants and planning state-level laws to prevent enforcement.

  3. Kurkosdr wrote, “if some states are allowed to offer “sanctuary” to illegal immigrants who manage to arrive there (denying the government the ability to deport them)”

    That’s not what’s happening. Sanctuary cities have just decided not to do the feds’ job. They don’t prevent the feds from deporting anyone. What do you think those cities do? Bar the doors to feds? Nope.

  4. Kurkosdr says:

    Obama has deported far more than any other president.

    Even if this is true, it is all for nought if some states are allowed to offer “sanctuary” to illegal immigrants who manage to arrive there (denying the government the ability to deport them), and those states don’t get slapped with massive federal fines for this (aka for making a mockery of the federal rule of law)

  5. kurkosdr wrote, “Canada actually enforces the immigration laws that Canada voted into law, instead of pretending the adjective “illegal” does not mean what it usually means when applied to the word “immigration”.”

    As if USA does not. They do. It’s just that the amount USA is willing to spend on government restricts what government can do, cutting off noses to spite faces. Obama has deported far more than any other president. OTOH, it’s not the job nor is it in the budget for local/state governments to enforce federal law. The real problem is not that illegal immigration happens but the causes of it, criminal cartels raping Mexico and central America. Stop importing illegal drugs and the illegal immigration problem will dry up, allowing economies to diversify and thrive down south.

  6. kurkosdr says:

    Kurkosdr Canada case is not illegal immigration with the refugees. Canada sends a lot of people home a year who over stay visas and the like.

    Anyone illegally entering Canada and get caught is forbid from applying to Canada for refugee status forever. Now if they declare themselves before getting caught then they can apply for refugee status.

    So, Canada actually enforces the immigration laws that Canada voted into law, instead of pretending the adjective “illegal” does not mean what it usually means when applied to the word “immigration”. Probably that’s why they don’t have a problem with illegal immigration. Which means Pog is preaching from the safe side (aka he hasn’t had a real taste of the problem).

  7. oiaohm wrote, “Canada sends a lot of people home a year who over stay visas and the like.”

    Chuckle. That reminds me of a day long ago when TLW and I were first married. We planned a vacation from Saudi Arabia and got all the right visas. Then we decided to reverse the itinerary so we could meet with a lady who lived in New York City. All was good until we got to NYC. TLW’s visa was only valid for entry from Canada, not Saudi Arabia! Well, we were bundled up and driven to another airport and held in trust at the airline’s expense and of course we never got to visit. We were put on the soonest plane to Canada… Chuckle. USA blamed the airline for not spotting the fine print at the bottom of the visa stamp. I guess this is an example of what Trump calls, “extreme vetting”. I think it’s just maximizing bureaucracy and making more people frustrated with USA. At the time, TLW was a landed immigrant in Canada and certainly was no threat to USA but still she was treated like a criminal. Now she is a Canadian citizen and visits USA almost every year. She has friends and relatives all over the planet and loves to travel.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Kurkosdr Canada case is not illegal immigration with the refugees. Canada sends a lot of people home a year who over stay visas and the like.

    Anyone illegally entering Canada and get caught is forbid from applying to Canada for refugee status forever. Now if they declare themselves before getting caught then they can apply for refugee status.

    Australia hard line immigration control is not exactly that.
    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1516/Quick_Guides/MigrationStatistics

    Really illegal immigration by visa over staying or using forged visas to fly into Australia is treated lot lighter in Australia than Canada or the USA.

    http://artsonline.monash.edu.au/thebordercrossingobservatory/publications/australian-border-deaths-database/

    Read the 2013 year. Where stop the boats came from a nightmare year of people attempting to get to Australia by boat and just ending up dead one way or another. 2013 means no leader of Australia is going to have a good time if they start talking about policies that encourage people to attempt the boat path.

    Issue here is people smugglers don’t give a rats how many people they put on a boat or if they have live vests or the like. As long as they get paid. So Australia is not that far anti-refugee. Australia is more anti-people getting dead.

  9. Kurkosdr says:

    So, you have some buffer… Good. Let’s see how long it lasts before the government has to fund housing for illegals from your taxes or make private real estate subject to”requisition” (aka forcing you to share) if your country doesn’t enforce immigration laws.

  10. kurkosdr wrote, “there aren’t many square feet of real estate (aka apartments and houses) largely unpopulated/unoccupied.”

    That’s trivial. In Canada there are regions with depressed economies like some small rural communities in Saskatchewan. Folks can get cheap housing easily there. My brother did that years ago. He bought a two-story brick house for $30K CDN. He had his mortgage paid off long before the rest of us… My Dad retired the same way. He got land and buildings essentially for $0. Grew a great garden there on an old barnyard. See, for example, several small towns offer free land for folks who build a home or move a home onto the property. That means immigrants can cooperate and build their own homes rather cheaply while they are acquiring language/trade/business/work skills. There are even a couple of building lots within half a mile of my home but the lots start at >$100K CDN. Just ~30 miles away is wilderness where if one can persuade an owner to subdivide anyone can move in. There’s even a fully serviced development out in the wilderness perfect for folks who like to hunt/fish/play golf or work from home. Compared to the Hell of Syria, folks would like to live anywhere near as peaceful as Canada.

  11. Kurkosdr says:

    if = of (in some places)

  12. Kurkosdr says:

    Last time I checked there are still millions of square miles of territory largely unpopulated.

    But there aren’t many square feet of real estate (aka apartments and houses) largely unpopulated/unoccupied. Since you are a real estate owner Pog, you must see that video of that Italian hotel owner who was forced to house illegal immigrants in his hotel at the government-set price of 7 euros per day, with the police violently barging in and literally occupying his hotel. And it’s not just hotels, anyone with a spare apartment or loft is subject to “requisition” of his property for the price of peanuts per day (price of 400 grams of peanuts per day to be more precise) by the Italian government.

    Just type “italian hotel owner forced to house illegal immigrants” on your favorite search engine.

    ….

    ….

    Done? Now, did it change your views about offering “sanctuary” to illegal immigrants? Did it help you realise that, if illegal immigrants are allowed to stay, you will have to share your land, your real estate and your food with them one way or another. Which is a problem, because the waves if illegal immigrants are endless, and hence your share will tend towards zero. With that in mind, all those people who voted for Trump because if his hardline views on illegal immigration and all those people who voted for that Australian Prime Minister (who is already implanting a hardline stance), suddenly those people don’t seem so crazy and raycist* anymore, right?

    *leftard spelling

  13. dougman says:

    I swear Robert, the more I come here the more it appears that Fifi has infected your brain.

  14. dougman wrote, “wait till the liberals in power demand that you give up your arms then forcibly evict you from your home to make way for migrant refugees”.

    Are you crazy? This country was built by indigenous people and refugees. Last time I checked there are still millions of square miles of territory largely unpopulated. There is no need to displace anyone any longer. Further, firearms are of little/no utility in case of surprise attacks, which most cases of violence are. Bad guys just don’t advertise their plans. Further, carrying a firearm may actually take effort and get in the way of other useful things folks should be doing. Firearms are effective for large groups where one can “post a guard” and specialized folks like police/military can take up arms more or less continuously and be effective. They are mostly useless for individuals subject to ambush/overwhelming forces/surprise except perhaps to guard a home with very secure doors and windows delaying intruders, but in that case the bad guys are already close enough to do harm whether one is armed or not. A good hard room or underground house would be more beneficial. Then firearms can actually be harmful: accidents, stolen/lost being acquired by bad guys/children/incompetents, collateral damage… So, one has to be good and lucky to benefit from firearms. There are few willing to gain the expertise and fewer who are always lucky.

  15. The Wiz wrote, “when the fit hits the shan”.

    Yes. Tyrants and gangs can always show up unannounced to do their deeds. Any individual is either lucky or highly organized to resist such forces. It is very difficult to oppose an organized evil. See Syria.

  16. Wizard Emeritus says:

    “wait till the liberals in power demand that you give up your arms then forcibly evict you from your home to make way for migrant refugees.”

    You have an excellent sense of Fantasy Dougie!

    And BTW, do you really think your collection of rifles is going to help you any more than those of us who do not when the fit hits the shan?

  17. dougman says:

    “Owning firearms for defence does not make a lot of sense”

    As a Socialist, and coming from a country that has no Second Amendment. No wonder it doesn’t make “a lot of sense”; wait till the liberals in power demand that you give up your arms then forcibly evict you from your home to make way for migrant refugees.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *