Ohio's DeWine does not crumble before the anti-gun loons

[M14 Shooter]

Your response is very short sighted. For example, in 1985 how many guys would have gotten in a fight with their brother over Susie Rottencrotch, only to pay a $50 fine to the Justice of the Peace and then have their Rights taken away years later due to the Lautenberg Amendment?

Looking at this more closely:

The Lautenburg Amendment defines 'domestic violence' as a crime between intimate partners, under which siblings do not fall:
18U.S.C.§921(a)(33)(A)(ii):
....committed by a current or former spouse,parent,or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent,or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

If you have a child with your sister, this may apply, else it does not.

EVERYBODY in Georgia who wants a divorce must submit a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER with their divorce petition OR the policy is your divorce petition will be rejected as a matter of policy. Read this paragraph again.

For a restring order to DQ someone under the Lautenberg Amendment it must meet the following conditions:

- It was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
- It restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
- It includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child;
- It explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

See bold. I suspect a mutual restraining order - which under what I found in GA law, is not a VPO - submitted by the parties to a divorce, includes any such finding.

Well well, who do we have here? Perry Mason? Perhaps Denny Crane?

I took the time to look at the actual law.
Given your incorrect interpretations, maybe you should try it a little more often.

I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Your response is very short sighted. For example, in 1985 how many guys would have gotten in a fight with their brother over Susie Rottencrotch, only to pay a $50 fine to the Justice of the Peace and then have their Rights taken away years later due to the Lautenberg Amendment?

Looking at this more closely:

The Lautenburg Amendment defines 'domestic violence' as a crime between intimate partners, under which siblings do not fall:
18U.S.C.§921(a)(33)(A)(ii):
....committed by a current or former spouse,parent,or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent,or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

If you have a child with your sister, this may apply, else it does not.

EVERYBODY in Georgia who wants a divorce must submit a MUTUAL RESTRAINING ORDER with their divorce petition OR the policy is your divorce petition will be rejected as a matter of policy. Read this paragraph again.

For a restring order to DQ someone under the Lautenberg Amendment it must meet the following conditions:

- It was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
- It restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
- It includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child;
- It explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

See bold. I suspect a mutual restraining order - which under what I found in GA law, is not a VPO - submitted by the parties to a divorce, includes any such finding.

Well well, who do we have here? Perry Mason? Perhaps Denny Crane?

I took the time to look at the actual law.
Given your incorrect interpretations, maybe you should try it a little more often.

I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

You were the one who is wrong. It has been carefully explained to you.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Looking at this more closely:

The Lautenburg Amendment defines 'domestic violence' as a crime between intimate partners, under which siblings do not fall:
18U.S.C.§921(a)(33)(A)(ii):
....committed by a current or former spouse,parent,or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabitating with or has cohabitated with the victim as a spouse, parent,or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim.

If you have a child with your sister, this may apply, else it does not.
For a restring order to DQ someone under the Lautenberg Amendment it must meet the following conditions:

- It was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had an opportunity to participate;
- It restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child
- It includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child;
- It explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury;

See bold. I suspect a mutual restraining order - which under what I found in GA law, is not a VPO - submitted by the parties to a divorce, includes any such finding.

Well well, who do we have here? Perry Mason? Perhaps Denny Crane?

I took the time to look at the actual law.
Given your incorrect interpretations, maybe you should try it a little more often.

I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

You we were the one who is wrong.

Obviously not, as demonstrated in post #36.
You, as demonstrated in post #36, were.
How did that happen?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gov. Mike DeWine is not calling for a “red flag law” or universal gun purchase background checks, but instead wants to improve existing systems to address gun violence that has killed more than 16,000 people in Ohio since 2007.

At a press conference Monday, the Republican governor called for a system to let people voluntarily run a background check before they sell firearms to someone in a private party deal. He also wants to mandate more timely, complete information be sent to existing background databases so that people who cannot lawfully buy a gun aren’t able to clear a background check.

DeWine is also wants a clear path for police to enforce existing laws that allow seizure of firearms from people under a “weapons disability” because of mental illness, drug use or alcoholism.

NEW DETAILS: Gov. DeWine outlines plan to tackle gun violence

I have to say I am mildly surprised by this - when I heard he had a plan for changes in Ohio's gun control laws, I figured we'd see a proposal for a red-flag law and universal background checks -- instead, he presented something I can support.

Good job, Mike!

DeWine caved. His plan sucks. The income tax was one of those laws that started out as "voluntary." Look at what it's become. There is something inherently wrong with any law that requires a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I have the ONLY plan that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent (and significantly reduce other types of shootings) without any new taxes, tax increases, bureaucracies or gun control.

People who have mental issues bad enough to prohibit them from owning weapons have no business running around unsupervised in our society. You catch them early, BEFORE they commit an act of violence and either rehabilitate them or keep them in a supervised environment.

I have an even MORE effective solution that will also reduce the cost and not trample on the rights of those with mental illnesses.

Assume everyone is bat-shit crazy, and EVERYBODY with capacity to do so, takes up arms and is responsible for his/her own personal security instead of relying on the state to protect them.

Problem solved.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well well, who do we have here? Perry Mason? Perhaps Denny Crane?

I took the time to look at the actual law.
Given your incorrect interpretations, maybe you should try it a little more often.

I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

You we were the one who is wrong.

Obviously not, as demonstrated in post #36.
You, as demonstrated in post #36, were.
How did that happen?

I don't know how you get things wrong. You seem to think you're Perry Mason, but I doubt it. Again, if you don't have case citations, you don't have shit.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Gov. Mike DeWine is not calling for a “red flag law” or universal gun purchase background checks, but instead wants to improve existing systems to address gun violence that has killed more than 16,000 people in Ohio since 2007.

At a press conference Monday, the Republican governor called for a system to let people voluntarily run a background check before they sell firearms to someone in a private party deal. He also wants to mandate more timely, complete information be sent to existing background databases so that people who cannot lawfully buy a gun aren’t able to clear a background check.

DeWine is also wants a clear path for police to enforce existing laws that allow seizure of firearms from people under a “weapons disability” because of mental illness, drug use or alcoholism.

NEW DETAILS: Gov. DeWine outlines plan to tackle gun violence

I have to say I am mildly surprised by this - when I heard he had a plan for changes in Ohio's gun control laws, I figured we'd see a proposal for a red-flag law and universal background checks -- instead, he presented something I can support.

Good job, Mike!

DeWine caved. His plan sucks. The income tax was one of those laws that started out as "voluntary." Look at what it's become. There is something inherently wrong with any law that requires a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I have the ONLY plan that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent (and significantly reduce other types of shootings) without any new taxes, tax increases, bureaucracies or gun control.

People who have mental issues bad enough to prohibit them from owning weapons have no business running around unsupervised in our society. You catch them early, BEFORE they commit an act of violence and either rehabilitate them or keep them in a supervised environment.

I have an even MORE effective solution that will also reduce the cost and not trample on the rights of those with mental illnesses.

Assume everyone is bat-shit crazy, and EVERYBODY with capacity to do so, takes up arms and is responsible for his/her own personal security instead of relying on the state to protect them.

Problem solved.

.

Not really helpful, but I do have the only solution that will reduce mass shootings without gun control.

 

[Dick Foster]

Whatever.

Anyone who thinks they can change culture by passing laws, is an idiot. You might as well pass a law that declares it can't rain on Tuesday.

Sure they can. After all prostitution disappered several hundred years ago after it was outlawed. And when they passed the 18th amendment everyone stopped drinking alcohol. Then we went on to win the war on drugs and that solved the drug problem.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I took the time to look at the actual law.
Given your incorrect interpretations, maybe you should try it a little more often.

I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

You we were the one who is wrong.

Obviously not, as demonstrated in post #36.
You, as demonstrated in post #36, were.
How did that happen?

I don't know how you get things wrong.

I cited the law; the text of the nullifies your assertions.
You may not like it, but there's nothing I can do about that - because according to the text of the law, you don't have shit.
Perhaps next time you'll actually read the law before you try to make up examples of how the law applies.
But, probably not.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

I worked in Georgia law for more years than you've been alive. I saw that I did not fully explain the law to you and added to my post while you were busy trying to criticize me.

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

You we were the one who is wrong.

Obviously not, as demonstrated in post #36.
You, as demonstrated in post #36, were.
How did that happen?

I don't know how you get things wrong.

I cited the law; the text of the nullifies your assertions.
You may not like it, but there's nothing I can do about that - because according to the text of the law, you don't have shit.
Perhaps next time you'll actually read the law before you try to make up examples of how the law applies.
But, probably not.

Look, you're being a ******* idiot. I tried to help you understand and you'd rather play a game. The text of the law is not the complete law. Period. If you don't like that, contact a lawyer and ask them.

What you cite is incomplete until the law has been interpreted by the courts. If you don't understand that, you're a ******* moron and I'm wasting my time with you.

I want to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms. If that's not what you're about, you are in the wrong fight. If you don't have a law degree, you shouldn't try to pretend you're something you're not. I write laws, lobby, go to court, and am an activist. Now, I've done all I can for you. You go on and on with your ego trip, butt hurt because you're not right about everything. Meanwhile I'm fighting for unalienable Rights.

I'll tell you one thing right the **** now. I've put my ass on the line and risked it all for what I believe in. With 36 times in court, I never lost and never got over-turned on appeal. I spent over a decade inviting keyboard commandos into my home so that they could see the evidence first hand. ALL of them turned out like you. When they had to face being proven wrong, they turn tail and run. So, if you'd like to keep this pissing match going, you're just going to get yourself spanked repeatedly. UNTIL YOU HAVE SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

 

[Votto]

Whatever.

Anyone who thinks they can change culture by passing laws, is an idiot. You might as well pass a law that declares it can't rain on Tuesday.

Think again.

Before slavery was outlawed the majority thought it Ok even though not ideal. Centuries later the idea of slavery seems morally repugnant to the majority after being made illegal.

Before Roe vs. Wade the majority consensus was that abortion was immoral. Decades after Roe the consensus is that abortion is Ok though not ideal.

Human beings are lemmings.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Whatever.

Anyone who thinks they can change culture by passing laws, is an idiot. You might as well pass a law that declares it can't rain on Tuesday.

Think again.

Before slavery was outlawed the majority thought it Ok even though not ideal. Centuries later the idea of slavery seems morally repugnant to the majority after being made illegal.

Before Roe vs. Wade the majority consensus was that abortion was immoral. Decades after Roe the consensus is that abortion is Ok though not ideal.

Human beings are lemmings.

You do make a point. What many gun owners rejected twenty years ago is now something they will argue to defend until Hell freezes over (as in the troll trying to prove me wrong with his private interpretation of a law.)

In the 1980s background checks, violations of the Right to Privacy, and the registration of human beings or firearms was repugnant to at least 87 percent of all gun owners. Piece by piece that is changing.

Twenty years from now, the pro-gun lobby will sound like Nancy Pelosi or maybe Barack Obama unless someone starts an effort to resist tyranny.

 

[Pogo]

Whatever.

Anyone who thinks they can change culture by passing laws, is an idiot. You might as well pass a law that declares it can't rain on Tuesday.

Think again.

Before slavery was outlawed the majority thought it Ok even though not ideal. Centuries later the idea of slavery seems morally repugnant to the majority after being made illegal.

Before Roe vs. Wade the majority consensus was that abortion was immoral. Decades after Roe the consensus is that abortion is Ok though not ideal.

Human beings are lemmings.

Bullshit.

To paraphrase Lincoln, culture is prior to, and independent of, legislation. Laws are only the fruit of cultural aims, and could never have existed if culture had not first gone that way. Culture is the superior, in power, of legislation, and deserves much the higher consideration.

No Virginia, the "majority" did not think slavery OK. Most of the North had already abolished it if they ever had it at all, indeed most of the world had, and only the rich planter class in the South was dependent on it, the element that waged the war.

Human beings are indeed lemmings but they're not lemmings for the frickin' law --- see the prior example of how well that Prohibition idea worked out. Rather, they're lemmings for peer pressure and what the TV or other media orders them to do. We didn't send the practice of smoking on a freefall by legislating it away --- we did that by making it uncool. We did that because movie idols and doctors and athletes weren't smoking any more. So the lemmings didn't either.

Culture leads; legislation follows.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Gov. Mike DeWine is not calling for a “red flag law” or universal gun purchase background checks, but instead wants to improve existing systems to address gun violence that has killed more than 16,000 people in Ohio since 2007.

At a press conference Monday, the Republican governor called for a system to let people voluntarily run a background check before they sell firearms to someone in a private party deal. He also wants to mandate more timely, complete information be sent to existing background databases so that people who cannot lawfully buy a gun aren’t able to clear a background check.

DeWine is also wants a clear path for police to enforce existing laws that allow seizure of firearms from people under a “weapons disability” because of mental illness, drug use or alcoholism.

NEW DETAILS: Gov. DeWine outlines plan to tackle gun violence

I have to say I am mildly surprised by this - when I heard he had a plan for changes in Ohio's gun control laws, I figured we'd see a proposal for a red-flag law and universal background checks -- instead, he presented something I can support.

Good job, Mike!

DeWine caved. His plan sucks. The income tax was one of those laws that started out as "voluntary." Look at what it's become. There is something inherently wrong with any law that requires a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I have the ONLY plan that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent (and significantly reduce other types of shootings) without any new taxes, tax increases, bureaucracies or gun control.

People who have mental issues bad enough to prohibit them from owning weapons have no business running around unsupervised in our society. You catch them early, BEFORE they commit an act of violence and either rehabilitate them or keep them in a supervised environment.

I have an even MORE effective solution that will also reduce the cost and not trample on the rights of those with mental illnesses.

Assume everyone is bat-shit crazy, and EVERYBODY with capacity to do so, takes up arms and is responsible for his/her own personal security instead of relying on the state to protect them.

Problem solved.

.

Not really helpful, but I do have the only solution that will reduce mass shootings without gun control.

No, mine will reduce mass shootings with the REMOVAL of gun control.

.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Gov. Mike DeWine is not calling for a “red flag law” or universal gun purchase background checks, but instead wants to improve existing systems to address gun violence that has killed more than 16,000 people in Ohio since 2007.

At a press conference Monday, the Republican governor called for a system to let people voluntarily run a background check before they sell firearms to someone in a private party deal. He also wants to mandate more timely, complete information be sent to existing background databases so that people who cannot lawfully buy a gun aren’t able to clear a background check.

DeWine is also wants a clear path for police to enforce existing laws that allow seizure of firearms from people under a “weapons disability” because of mental illness, drug use or alcoholism.

NEW DETAILS: Gov. DeWine outlines plan to tackle gun violence

I have to say I am mildly surprised by this - when I heard he had a plan for changes in Ohio's gun control laws, I figured we'd see a proposal for a red-flag law and universal background checks -- instead, he presented something I can support.

Good job, Mike!

DeWine caved. His plan sucks. The income tax was one of those laws that started out as "voluntary." Look at what it's become. There is something inherently wrong with any law that requires a background check in order to exercise a constitutional right.

I have the ONLY plan that would reduce mass shootings by 90 percent (and significantly reduce other types of shootings) without any new taxes, tax increases, bureaucracies or gun control.

People who have mental issues bad enough to prohibit them from owning weapons have no business running around unsupervised in our society. You catch them early, BEFORE they commit an act of violence and either rehabilitate them or keep them in a supervised environment.

I have an even MORE effective solution that will also reduce the cost and not trample on the rights of those with mental illnesses.

Assume everyone is bat-shit crazy, and EVERYBODY with capacity to do so, takes up arms and is responsible for his/her own personal security instead of relying on the state to protect them.

Problem solved.

.

Not really helpful, but I do have the only solution that will reduce mass shootings without gun control.

No, mine will reduce mass shootings with the REMOVAL of gun control.

.

How come everybody here is opposed to realistically addressing the dangers of gun control?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain then how you were wrong in the examples your provided to illustrate the problems with the Lautenberg amendment.

You we were the one who is wrong.

Obviously not, as demonstrated in post #36.
You, as demonstrated in post #36, were.
How did that happen?

I don't know how you get things wrong.

I cited the law; the text of the nullifies your assertions.
You may not like it, but there's nothing I can do about that - because according to the text of the law, you don't have shit.
Perhaps next time you'll actually read the law before you try to make up examples of how the law applies.
But, probably not.

Look, you're being a ******* idiot.

Yawn.

You believe a misdemeanor charge of, well, something, that stemmed from a fight between two siblings and warranted a $50 fine from the JoP falls under "domestic violence" as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
- Cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
- Cite federal case law that supports your claim.

You believe a mutual restraining law, as defined in GA law, qualifies as a disqualifying restraining order as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
- Cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
- Cite federal case law that supports your claim.

UNTIL YOU HAVE THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

But you wont - because you're a ******* moron and I'm wasting my time with you.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

You we were the one who is wrong.

Obviously not, as demonstrated in post #36.
You, as demonstrated in post #36, were.
How did that happen?

I don't know how you get things wrong.

I cited the law; the text of the nullifies your assertions.
You may not like it, but there's nothing I can do about that - because according to the text of the law, you don't have shit.
Perhaps next time you'll actually read the law before you try to make up examples of how the law applies.
But, probably not.

Look, you're being a ******* idiot.

Yawn.

You believe a misdemeanor charge of, well, something, that stemmed from a fight between two siblings and warranted a $50 fine from the JoP falls under "domestic violence" as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
- Cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
- Cite federal case law that supports your claim.

You believe a mutual restraining law, as defined in GA law, qualifies as a disqualifying restraining order as the term is defined in the Lautenburg Amendment
- Cite the text of the law (already provided) that supports your claim
- Cite federal case law that supports your claim.

UNTIL YOU HAVE THE TEXT OF THE LAW AND SOME CASE CITATIONS TO BACK YOUR CLAIMS ABOUT WHAT THE LAW MEANS, YOU DON'T HAVE SHIT.

But you wont - because you're a ******* moron and I'm wasting my time with you.

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you. As it turns out I did a term as Justice of the Peace. And, yes, if one sibling was looking after the younger, the older could be considered a guardian.

A Mutual Restraining Order does disqualify one to exercise the Right to keep and bear Arms. A Temporary Restraining Order will not. But, it is all irrelevant. If you're stupid enough to believe that with 40,000 + federal, state, county, and city laws, rules, regulations, edicts, ordinances, Executive Orders, statutes, case law holdings, etc. and they couldn't find one to fit you, then you are the stupidest mother ****** on this board. You might even be delusional. There's shit on the books that you and I don't know exists AND couldn't begin to fathom how it would be applied.

Do us both a favor. Don't bother responding.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

So what do you want, no identification at all for something so important as voting? You need an ID for many other things like boarding a plane, buying alcohol or tobacco products, purchasing a home, renting a car or backhoe.....

One of the top reasons people are breaking into our country is work. Some are hiring illegally knowingly, and others are using fake documentation so the employer has no idea. Either way, jobs are attracting illegals to this country, and E-verify is one way to curb that.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

When the pro-gun factions will try to eat their own as opposed to having a civil conversation and work toward realistic solutions, you know they're pretty well screwed.

The left wants background checks, registration and eventual confiscation. The right wing likes the idea of a POLICE STATE with its National ID / REAL ID Act - E Verify, 27 / 7 / 365 womb to the tomb monitoring, prove this, prove that agenda, so the right and the left are simply two hands washing each other while bitching about which hand is the dirtiest.

So what do you want, no identification at all for something so important as voting? You need an ID for many other things like boarding a plane, buying alcohol or tobacco products, purchasing a home, renting a car or backhoe.....

One of the top reasons people are breaking into our country is work. Some are hiring illegally knowingly, and others are using fake documentation so the employer has no idea. Either way, jobs are attracting illegals to this country, and E-verify is one way to curb that.

People in this country used to understand that a driver's license was permission from the government to operate a vehicle on the highway.

When we got this notion that everybody needed an "ID" to do the things they normally do in the course of a day baffles me, but you are making a case for registered and carefully regulated firearms. You are making a case for big government on a scale that would make Hitler's tattoo idea pale by comparison.

One can tell that you have little knowledge and NO respect for the Constitution of the United States. You would be better served to join with the Democrats as your arguments are the same, exact ones they made in the mid 1990s. You speak of "illegals" realizing full well that under our system of jurisprudence, an individual is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

Foreigners have every Right to take a job willingly offered. Laws that impede such were ones forced through Congress by liberal Democrat Ted Kennedy and their purpose was to dilute the white vote by creating quotas. Such quotas deny to employers the equal protection of the laws; deny the foreigner their unalienable Rights and create a pretext to institute National Socialist policies regarding ID and the constant surveillance and monitoring of human beings.

Congress never had jurisdiction over foreigners until 1875 and then only because the United States Supreme Court granted Congress "plenary powers" AND changed the meaning of words to justify their actions. The biggest problem you have there is that the Constitution does not give the United States Supreme Court any authority to bestow upon any other branch of government ANY powers. Apparently you are ignorant or don't care about the Rule of Law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No sir, I'm wasting my time with you.

What's that?
You cannot cite the text of the statute and the case law that supports your claim?
This means you don't have shit.
I accept your concession of the points you tried to make.