BIGUN

Thank you for the compliment. When I said, "Leave;" I meant that as in when the thread turns into a camel-spitting contest or kitchen sink argument; I can leave the thread. I have admittedly had to take breaks at times, but that's true of any relationship. And, even though some on here don't agree with me; that doesn't mean I can't learn something from them or them from me. Bill's a perfect example. 10 years ago; he gave me pause on global warming and I was forced to research it "to death." I came to acknowledge that my party didn't know shit from a good grade of peanut butter about the subject and my position changed. I soon came to believe that anyone who didn't believe in global warming - probably hasn't picked up a book in years. Again thanks, Keith Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Bill has the same rights as you on this forum. Personally, I find his threads informative and when they turn sideways; I have the same rights as you - to not participate. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

This reminded me of one of my own election phrases when asked who I'm voting for... "The one who promises not to make any new laws." Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Thanatophobia = Fear of Death. It's normal for someone your age. Life responsibilities start building up (Kids, house, college for the kids, savings, do I have enough insurance, do I have enough... etc. etc.), stress goes up, the only outlet is your thoughts at night before you go to bed. It's a form of anxiety. Write down those things you're thinking about right before you go to sleep - take that piece of paper and put it in a drawer and tell yourself, "I'll worry about that tomorrow and then: You have your faith. Use it. Pray before you go to sleep. Christian or meditation music when you go to bed. The good news is - those your age usually have these thoughts for a short period. If it's longer than three months - go do some talk therapy. Getting it out with a health professional allows you to give them your problem. And, yes; I remember you. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Who was replaced with Frank Riggs (R) who I think may be registered as an (R); but is a moderate with a balance between (D) & (R). Riggs served on the House Education and Workforce Committee and chaired the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families in the 105th Congress. In that capacity, he authored the Charter School Expansion Act (signed into law by President Bill Clinton in October, 1998) which provides federal start-up grants to newly formed charter schools to help defray their initial operating expenses. Most Arizona charter schools have received federal start-up grants as a result of Riggs' legislation. He has beat more than one (D), but I think that's because he's "Old-School" bipartisan... a rare gem these days. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

No worries. Thank you. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Bill, if you're going to speak for me: then please understand my position first. The fact is we all know that "Other Persons" meant slaves. Having said that, the position is one of politics and compromise. It's a good read. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Speaking of which, you said you could make an argument about the 14th, but you haven't yet attempted it. Can you, or not? I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. I did and offered an opinion also. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

You're mistaken. Article 1, section 2, clause 3 of the United States Constitution says: Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons Good, you found it. It's OK to apologize when you're wrong. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

You're mistaken. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

SCOTUS has already done that - just as they did with the 14th amendment. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

The argument for Jus Soli has been fought and won and upheld by SCOTUS (You're familiar with Kim Wong Ark). "IF" the 14th amendment were challenged in favor of Jus Sanguinis - there are those that would "argue" that SCOTUS ruling hasn't been tested in over a hundred years. There is a lengthy treatise in the Cornell Law Library that explains how our forefathers would have based the 14th amendment on British Common Law (and that they themselves had at one time been British Citizens and how they made the transfer to American citizenship themselves. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/169/649 My opinion, is that it will not change and just as Speaker Ryan said yesterday - it would need a constitutional amendment. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

The argument would stem around "jus soli" vs. "jus sanguinis." Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

There is an argument to be made for the first part of the amendment. "all persons being born or naturalized in the United States," read as a domiciled citizen - not as a tourist or illegal immigrant showing up to have a kid and, Ta Da!!! My kid is an American. "A president could direct his agencies to fall in line with his interpretation of the Supreme Court's rulings, which are arguably limited to children of permanently domiciled immigrants (the court has never squarely ruled on children born to tourists or illegal aliens). He could direct his agencies to issue Social Security numbers and passports only to newborns who have at least one parent who is a citizen or permanently domiciled immigrant," SOURCE: https://www.clintonherald.com/news/national_world_news/trump-end-birthright-citizenship-for-some-us-born-babies/article_47d53e2a-08dc-59c4-baf8-ae441fe27a49.html Having shared this - My own opinion is that its mid-term saber-rattling and even if he does get it written and signed; he'd better have an army of legal experts ensure the verbiage is absolutely Supreme Court proof. I don't think that can happen in a week. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

You mean something like this? TEXAS DEMOCRATS URGE NON-CITIZENS TO REGISTER WITH PRE-FILLED APPLICATIONS Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Rob, Sorry for not responding sooner. Most of Tulsa was busy at the Synagogues around town. I really hope you don't think I condone racist, anti-gay, or other prejudicial behaviors. EDIT: I'm really not sure why this was directed at me. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Pun intended? Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

All of Item 1 was based on the Canadian Model where the term "Transport" was used. It does not take much to review the Canadian transport model as... Non-restricted firearms left unattended in a car must be locked in the trunk or in a similar lockable compartment. If the vehicle does not have a trunk or compartment, the firearm must be placed out of sight inside the vehicle and the vehicle must be locked (same rules apply for transport of replica firearms) Non-restricted firearms must be: transported unloaded (with the exception of muzzle-loading rifles, which can be transported loaded between hunting sites so long as the firing cap or flint is removed). Restricted and prohibited firearms must be: unloaded, made inoperable with a secure locking device, and locked in a sturdy container. Prohibited firearms must also have their bolts or bolt-carriers removed, if removable. Nor do we. With the exception of five states, you must apply and get approved for a CCP to do so (Background check, mental check, etc.). Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4876454#4876454 Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Keith, Thanks for the link. By sheer coincidence I was looking at this just before checking out SC. The tags price in CHF; Swiss francs. Are you suggesting that a nations gun laws should reflect it's culture? If so, at which point in time? In our case, do we pick 1776, 1865 or 2018? That's what makes it all so thorny. I'm a gun person, that's no secret. To be sure, I'm a bit of an oddity amongst we pinkos in that way. I just believe that gun ownership and more gun laws in America need not be mutually exclusive things. Like Ken, I'd agree with Swiss laws above our own. Things will change and we need to start somewhere. Joe Morning Joe, >>>Are you suggesting that a nations gun laws should reflect it's culture? Just the opposite. I think the culture reflects its gun laws. I don't read you as a pinko. More like just left of moderate. On separate, but important point - about our laws in the US. Not only for you; but, Jerry and others. In speaking about Honduras & Switzerland and the proposed solution thread - All have a common denominator - A national firearms registry database (We have discussed cradle to grave ownership not unlike a vehicle). The fact of the matter is that all of the discussions regarding "solutions" have one huge barrier. No one can be compelled to register their weapons in a national database in the US. [emphasis] No one. The Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA) is a United States federal law that revised many provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968. As such, FOPA makes it illegal for the national government or any state in the country to keep any sort of database or registry that ties firearms directly to their owner. The exact wording of the provision is as follows: "No such rule or regulation prescribed [by the Attorney General] after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or disposition be established. Nothing in this section expands or restricts the Secretary's authority to inquire into the disposition of any firearm in the course of a criminal investigation." The FOPA was enacted because - 75 percent of ATF prosecutions "were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations." It suggested that reform of federal firearms law such as proposed in S. 1030 "would be largely self-enforcing" and "would enhance vital protection of constitutional and civil liberties of those Americans who choose to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms." Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Now, one can arrive at the border and seek asylum, but that's where it gets sticky. True, but UNTIL they've done something illegal, they aren't illegal. It is, after all, not illegal to present yourself at the US border and ask for asylum. I dedicated an entire paragraph to your point. Starting with the same sentence. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Morning Joe, Mea culpa. I was entrenched in anger about the whole region (well, I have been for a long time); I switched players in the middle of the game. Thanks for the catch. Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Your one example went to the extreme; where did I advocate that? I would be happy with something like Canada has, as one example. And, I do not consider it extreme. Unless one is OK with the current mass killings in this country, we need to do something. Jerry Baumchen Jerry, Point taken on the extreme. It was a "real-world" example. As to the "Canada" solution - I made a thread about proposed solutions. Here's the interesting thing. I even used the Canadian model in the solution (and more) - guess what? It got slammed by the Democrats on here as not good enough. Most of them didn't even know what the Canadian model was... But, it wasn't enough. Keith Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Hey, Joe. I would attribute that more to culture than to laws. Perhaps a better question is - Why are there open societies that have the same gun laws as us not have near as many gun crimes. https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/02/swiss-guns/553448/ Keith Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

Hi Jerry, From my perspective; additional new laws for the non-nutters "may" result in them becoming criminals. I once read where every one of us commits an unknown crime every day. After awhile, you just can't keep up. Over the years, gun laws have been combined into broader acts. However, if you broke out each provision of each act at the federal, state, and local level the number of gun laws gets ridiculous. My suspicion is - you may have never met a really truly nutter - they really have no thought process about right from wrong. Let's look at one now-in-the-news example - The immigrant caravan. Up until 1985, there was no official regulation of gun ownership and possession by private citizens of the Honduran Constitution of 1965. The new constitution in 1982, which stated, "No one may possess or carry weapons without the permission of the competent authority." (partial quote from Wiki) and my experience down there in the 80's. After that; the laws became more restrictive. Even to the point where one could only purchase a weapon from La Armeria (the Armory) which is the only outlet authorized to import and sell firearms in Honduras and is run by the armed forces. Now, the citizens CAN own weapons, but Honduras developed a national database of all purchases, which was done from La Armeria, in which the database is run by La Armeria. So, speak out against Daniel Ortega and his cronies and see if you can own one or not have it confiscated if you cross the wrong person in "competent authority." Freedom of press/expression is a constitutional right in Honduras. EXCEPT for that pesky desacato (disrespect) provision, which aimed to protect the honor of public officials. Other restrictive press laws can be used to punish journalists who report on sensitive issues such as government corruption, drug trafficking, and human rights abuses. Now, the Democrat side in the U.S. hollers, "Look what they're running from!!!" Open our borders!!! Let those poor oppressed people in!!! It all began with a people who could not fight back. Who could not fight for their rights. Nor, protect themselves from the gangs and criminals because of restrictive gun laws. Keith edit: Grammar Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.