No. It's a Constitutional Right & no regulatioins are acceptable.
Yes. Reasonable regulations are acceptable.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry full auto weapons.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry flame throwers.
A law abiding citizen should have the right to own & carry tactical nukes.
gun restrictions are necessary to prevent unauthorized use by nuts.
It has no bearing on a discussion of whether or not to neuter the rights of a citizen convicted of a felony.
You just wanted to dive into a nitpick about citizenship and your daughter. Well she can't vote, so she aint a citizen in MY book. She is a child. She is NOT free. If she is "FREE" then YOU are a horrible parent, as children need boundaries and rules. Would you like to focus the topic on your poor parenting now ? Or shall we drop your red herring ?
Till then, address the neutering of the robber's suffrage and second.
Is it not possible for your fellow citizen to make a mistake, or mend their ways ?
In the case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the Supreme Court ruled that a person who is born in the United States
of parents who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of a foreign power
whose parents have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States
whose parents are there carrying on business and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity of the foreign power to which they are subject
becomes, at the time of his birth, a citizen of the United States, by virtue of the first clause of the 14th amendment of the Constitution.
In most cases, one is a U.S. citizen if both of the following are true:
Both parents were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth
At least one parent lived in the United States prior to the child's birth.
INA 301(c) and INA 301(a)(3) state, "and one of whom has had a residence." The FAM (Foreign Affairs Manual) states "no amount of time specified."
For persons born on or after November 14, 1986, a person is a U.S. citizen if all of the following are true:
One of the person's parents was a U.S. citizen when the person in question was born;
The citizen parent lived at least 5 years in the United States before his or her child's birth;
A minimum of 2 of these 5 years in the United States were after the citizen parent's 14th birthday.
United States nationality law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It is interesting that you use your own definition of what a citizen is when you are so completey and utterly defeated, that is a classic tactic. It isn't helping you in showing how we won in Vietnam either.
You are the one that threatened to want to personally fight me back in the day, not the other way around. Talk about delusions as to who is emotional and who isn't... Well, since you want to gutter the discussion with false accusations of being angry and being emotional, along with not understanding that a citizen of the USA is any person, of any age, that is either born in the USA or born to an American citizen, then I guess that is your way of conceding. I accept.
Veni. Vidi. Vici.
-Gaius Julius Caesar
The Only Thing to Fear is Fear Itself.
-Franklin Delano Roosevelt
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship By a Child Born Abroad
Birth Abroad to Two U.S. Citizen Parents in Wedlock: A child born abroad to two U.S. citizen parents acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under section 301(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). One of the parents MUST have resided in the U.S. prior to the child's birth. No specific period of time for such prior residence is required.
Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock: A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Father: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen father may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(a) INA provided:
1) a blood relationship between the applicant and the father is established by clear and convincing evidence;
2) the father had the nationality of the United States at the time of the applicant's birth;
3) the father (unless deceased) has agreed in writing to provide financial support for the person until the applicant reaches the age of 18 years, and
4) while the person is under the age of 18 years --
A) applicant is legitimated under the law of their residence or domicile,
B) father acknowledges paternity of the person in writing under oath, or
C) the paternity of the applicant is established by adjudication court.
Birth Abroad Out-of-Wedlock to a U.S. Citizen Mother: A child born abroad out-of-wedlock to a U.S. citizen mother may acquire U.S. citizenship under Section 301(g) INA, as made applicable by Section 309(c) INA if the mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of the child's birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.
Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad
I know she is technically a "citizen", however she is a minor, and that is not a parallel to being a felon, so you don't really have a point in the original discussion, just an irrelevant red herring you would rather persue.
You said your daughter is a "free citizen", so why are you such a bad parent as to let a four year old roam free ? ? ?
You would like to nitpick your daughter into relevance, but it is just your sidestep from the discussion. If you want to talk about your daughter, we can talk about the poor parenting you are displaying by letting her roam free, and I will admit she is a citizen. You did claim she was a "free citizen" right ? So she is four, and free to stay up late, or free to eat ice cream all day ? Or were you caught in a lie I can nitpick ?
Cease Mentioning your irrelevant daughter or we will just continue to discuss the need for CPS involvement in her boundary-free life.
Last edited by Voidwar; 09-24-09 at 02:13 AM.
If you have the guts to get back on the topic Bodi, here it is.
Why don't you give me one good reason not to let a man convicted of unarmed felony assault not to be allowed to possess a weapon for the defense of his business or home after his release ?
Since you brought up sex offender monitoring, (in post #556) why don't you give me one good reason for a person convicted of sexual battery against an adult, to face a legal hassle if they want to buy a home near a school ?
Well then, if that's yoru standard, all I need to do is this:
-Restriticng the voting and gun rights of those that have served their time in prison do not violate the 8th amendment because it is neoither cruel nor unusual.
-Restricting the voting and gun rights of those that have served their time in prison do not violate the 5th amendment because they are liberties that may be depreived by due process.
There. You've been proven wrong.