Is it okay to use the same argument on immigration as anti-gunners use for gun control?

In both cases the left wants to punish law abiding citizens while victimizing, enabling, and supporting criminals all to support their own agenda.

Aside from being a right to firearms ownership with a Constitution backing it up, it would be similar to the "apples and oranges" comparison. Yes the are both, conceivably, dangerous (immigrants/firearms) or both fruit (apples/oranges), but drastically different. A single firearm, in the hand of a dedicated and trained individual can cause serious carnage, whereas a dedicated individual, with limited training can detonate a device with catastrophic results. Firearms are not fleeing to the US, demanding benefits, protesting, or creating areas governed by sharia law. Firearms are not wondering the streets on their own, in singles or gangs, accosting, raping and killing citizens. Firearms are not draining the coffers of entitlements, set aside for legal citizens. Firearms are not trafficking illegal drugs, killing folks while driving drunk, nor flooding the economy with cheap labor. On their own, firearms are not rioting in the streets causing millions of dollars of destruction, not mention, again, the death and injuries inflicted by fists, knives, fire, bricks and so on. A determined individual will kill you with whatever they have and are comfortable with using. Immigrants come to the US with, at times, vastly different values, ideologies, religions and intent. Firearms have no bias either way, no conscious thinking or intent, well,,,,,,because they are a tool, the same as a hammer or wrench. They can no more influence the actions of the carpenter or mechanic in, either, good work/intentions, or otherwise.

it's the Liberal and Progressive "MO."... read the Book Rules for Radicals By Saul Alinski...

I say no, because immigration to the US is a privilege not a rite. Gun ownership is a rite guaranteed by the constitution.

You are talking apples and oranges. Your question covers all immigration. Not the current ban of 7 countries. Using it for straight immigration policies is ignorant. Using it on the vetting policy and ban is quite different. Also banning guns in citizens hands has ever saved a life, and firearms in the hands of trained citizens has been proven to save lives. I personally would not vote on this loaded question.

Not really a yes or no question in my opinion-Guns in the right hands have on occasion saved lives and I suppose you can also argue that most illegal immigrants which I'm assuming you are referring to add something to our society. I think we as a sovereign nation have a right-no a responsibility to do what we need to do to protect our citizens. If this is in response to the President's recent temporary limits on immigration from 7 other countries I would at other Presidents including Obama have place temporary limits without all the fuss I see with our current President's actions!

The question is not about immigration. Immigration is LEGALLY coming to a country and following that countries laws, in order to meld into that society. Illegal aliens, coming to this country to either A - live off our welfare system, or B - try to force their beliefs and legal system on US citizens, or C - become involved in some sort of terrorist mission. "Gun Control" is not about guns, it is about control, and not what you or I think about when we talk gun control.

That's comparing Apples to oranges I think. Ones a right for your safety and the other is a temporary ban for the whole country's safety.

Immigration control is wrong for the same reasons gun control is wrong.

Freedom