Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
You don't explain why it isn't, you just say it isn't and expect us to think that since you said it, you are correct... you aren't.

A false characterization.

Voidwar said:
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

I disagree with the practice, completely.

A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.
This need does not go away just because the citizen did time.

Sex offenders ? What a joke, unnecessarily hassling most, ineffectively ignored in cases where it might really matter.

Bodhisattva said:
Minors are citizens too, apparently you think that a five year-old should be able to carry around an AK-47?

Can you quote ME saying that, or is that you making up a strawman ?

Bodhisattva said:
Logic would dictate that you feel

So logic dictates what I feel ?

Really ? Um, NO.

This and the blather that followed it, is merely another attempt by you, to fashion a strawman.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
You think that sex offenders should have all rights and privileges that everybody else has? The right to work in a preschool and be alone with 4 year-olds? I seriously hope this is not what you are saying because it is disgusting.

Yawn. Say a guy gets falsely accused of rape, and qualifies for the list.

No reason to use a stupid blanket law to do the job of a pre-school principal.

The list itself, is stupid, and also a violation of the fifth.

People that want to hump children, do not have a problem breaking your rule about lists either.

Bothering to have a list just hassles all the wrong people, while your bogeyman scare case will ignore it anyway.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
A false characterization.

Just a simple observation...

Originally Posted by Voidwar
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.
I disagree with the practice, completely.
A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva
Minors are citizens too, apparently you think that a five year-old should be able to carry around an AK-47?

Originally Posted by Voidwar
Can you quote ME saying that, or is that you making up a strawman ?

Just a simple extension of logic. :roll:

My 4 year-old daughter is a free citizen, and you say that a free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense, consequently it goes that you think that a five year-old should be able to carry around an AK-47.

So logic dictates what I feel ?

Really ? Um, NO.

ummm... yeah, I should have said "think", good one voidwar, really clever. :doh

This and the blather that followed it, is merely another attempt by you, to fashion a strawman

It is a question so that we understand what you are really saying, since you have this childish habit of saying that you say something when you really don't. Seriously, it is like pulling teeth trying to get you to actually make a solid, logical statement sometimes...

Yawn. Say a guy gets falsely accused of rape, and qualifies for the list.

No reason to use a stupid blanket law to do the job of a pre-school principal.

The list itself, is stupid, and also a violation of the fifth.

People that want to hump children, do not have a problem breaking your rule about lists either.

Bothering to have a list just hassles all the wrong people, while your bogeyman scare case will ignore it anyway.

Yawn? Boring yourself with your continued inability to follow a rational line of thought? I am asking simple, linear questions, sorry that it tires you so. :lol:

I have said nothing about lists, nor rules about lists, just another example of your inability to maintain an honest discussion.

If a guy is convicted of child molestation, should he be allowed to be a preschool teacher? Yes or no?

Also, is a child molestor a threat to kids or not? Yes or no?

If yes, then why the appeal to emotion with all this "boogieman" bull****?

If no, then what the ****?

Do you advocate a State of Nature within the confines of the Constitution? **** all unless it falls within your notion of our rights?

Goobieman · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
I don't concede a thing. You didn't provide the incident I asked for...

Its your claim.
Its not up to me to disprove your claim, its up to you to support it.
I askied you to back it up, and you refuse to do so.
You have failed to support your claim, and so your argument fails.

Its really that simple.

Disagree?

Then please cite any SCotuS decision that rules that the only constitutionally valid penalties are fines and/or imprisonment, with all others violating the 5th and 8th amendments.

False. My reasoning may be simple, but that does not make it unsound.

No...the fact that you cannot support yout premise w/ relevant, verifiable arguments makes it unsound.

My reasons are mostly quoted directly from the Bill of Rights, or other Constitutional Amendments, but also from documents like the Declaration, and even possibly subjective notions about the spirit of this country

Aside from ther fact that you simply saying that a quote from the DoI or BoR means something doesnt mean ANYTHING...
You said earlier that the DoI wasnt relevant.

Naw, it is your, ad hominem, red herring, loaded question.

You obviously do not know what an ad hom is.
An, as I proved from your very on quote, its YOUR red herring.
One you're now runnung away from.
So, do you have the right to life liberty and property, or not?

Right after you show me an incident where fines and punishment were found to be in violation of the eighth.

I need do no such thing, as I have claimed no such thing.

Sure. Do they have to do with this topic tho ?

It directly disproves your claim that the --only-- constitutional punishment are incarceration or fines.

This, alone, means you are wrong.

Perhaps I discussed the topic as I would with a grown up who can see one step down the road, and this was my error.

Now THERE'S an ad hom!!

You -clearly- arent capable of supporting your claim.
Get back to me when you can.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
Just a simple observation...

One proven completely inaccurate by the quote I followed it with.

Bodhisattva said:
Just a simple extension of logic. :roll:

Nope, just a tactic where you make something up, then claim I said it.

Its not like I wasn't ready for your strawman avalanche.

Bodhisattva said:
My 4 year-old daughter is a free citizen

A false claim.

Bodhisattva said:
It is a question

More falsehoods. If this is a question :

Bodhisattva said:
A person that commits murder and is imprisoned is still a citizen. Logic would dictate that you feel that convicted felons, while in prison, should be able to own and carry guns. This is where your logic is flawed...

Where is the question mark ?

I think its NOT a question, but rather, as I accurately stated before, it is your attempt to fashion a strawman.

Bodhisattva said:
I am asking simple, linear questions, sorry that it tires you so. :lol:

You are making up strawmen, and trying to pin them to me.

Bodhisattva said:
I have said nothing about lists, nor rules about lists

What do you think a sex offender registry is ?

Bodhisattva said:
If a guy is convicted of child molestation, should he be allowed to be a preschool teacher? Yes or no?

I'll say no. But I won't make it a stupid ass blanket ill fitting law.

I will leave the decision, that "no" where it belongs, in the hands of the principal.

Bodhisattva said:
Also, is a child molestor a threat to kids or not? Yes or no?

Yes, and would you release this danger ?

Bodhisattva said:
If yes, then why the appeal to emotion with all this "boogieman" bull****?

Because you base your objections off of worst case scenarios, and that is a hallmark of YOUR emotionalization of the issue.

I note now, that you did not address my point ONE BIT.

I wonder why that is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Perhaps that is because it is one of the NOT worst case scenarios.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
Its your claim.
Its not up to me to disprove your claim, its up to you to support it.
I askied you to back it up, and you refuse to do so.

I already told you, I am not your law clerk.

When you go get what I asked for, then mebbe I will do your homework assignment.

I don't mind doing yours, because it won't get you a damn thing anyway.

Would you like to know why the crap you requested doesn't matter ?

Its all right here for the reading :

Voidwar said:
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

I disagree with the practice, completely.

A free citizen has the right to weapons for self defense.
This need does not go away just because the citizen did time.

Sex offenders ? What a joke, unnecessarily hassling most, ineffectively ignored in cases where it might really matter.

So what did you ask for ? Cases ? Precedent ?

What is so hard for you to understand about these sentences ?

Voidwar said:
The fact that we currently punish citizens after release does not justify itself.

Its just what we are doing now, and that does not add in to a discussion of whether it is the right thing to do or not.

Precedent gains you NOTHING in a normative discussion.

Goobieman said:
You said earlier that the DoI wasnt relevant.

I said it carried no legal weight. Difference, and don't scold me for using YOUR playbook unless you swear to use it no longer.

Goobieman said:
You obviously do not know what an ad hom is.

It is you trying to make the thread about ME when it is about the 2nd Amendment, and the sub-topic has become the neutered rights of felons.

Goobieman said:
So, your right to life is a privelege?

Goobieman said:
So, again, you have no right to life, liberty or property?

Goobieman said:
I asked you a question, pursunt to -your- statement.
So, again: you have no right to life, liberty or property?

I am not the topic, as I am neither incarcerated, nor a felon.

Goobieman said:
An, as I proved from your very on quote, its YOUR red herring.

No, it is an irrelevant question you are attempting to bait me and derail the thread with, and I ignore it, because of its lack of relevance.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Goobieman said:
It directly disproves your claim that the --only-- constitutional punishment are incarceration or fines.

That wasn't my claim, child. . .

Voidwar said:
Do you think a dead man can vote ?

Do you think a dead man can exercise second amendment rights ?

Perhaps I discussed the topic as I would with a grown up who can see one step down the road, and this was my error.

Who knew I would have to explain to Goobie that you can't violate a dead man's rights ?

But Goobie thinks he can score a point by pretending I left something out.

The point you can score Goobie, is not looking like a berk when you can't understand that I skipped death, because it is not relevant to the topic. Dead men don't ask to vote after you execute them, DO THEY ???

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
One proven completely inaccurate by the quote I followed it with.

I treated that as a separate point, and that was my mistake.

A false claim.

She is not a free citizen? How is that?

More falsehoods. If this is a question :

Where is the question mark ?

I think its NOT a question, but rather, as I accurately stated before, it is your attempt to fashion a strawman.

It was an implied question.

You are making up strawmen, and trying to pin them to me.

I am making up scenarios and trying to understand your position, generally, people just alter the scenario in order to explain their ideas instead of getting defensive.

What do you think a sex offender registry is ?

I am talking about the principle, not the list.

I'll say no. But I won't make it a stupid ass blanket ill fitting law.

I will leave the decision, that "no" where it belongs, in the hands of the principal.

And how is the principal supposed to know if there is not a list?

Yes, and would you release this danger ?

Actually, I would have all convicted rapists, murderers and child/sexual offenders put to death.

Because you base your objections off of worst case scenarios, and that is a hallmark of YOUR emotionalization of the issue.

I completely leave emotion out of my argument, mine is an ethical postion, one devoid of emotion...

I note now, that you did not address my point ONE BIT.

I wonder why that is ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?

Perhaps that is because it is one of the NOT worst case scenarios.

Everything should be taken case by case...

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
She is not a free citizen? How is that?

Yawn. More red herring. She is a minor that may yet live to become a citizen.

Who cares , can she vote ? ahh, red herring then.

Bodhisattva said:
It was an implied question.

Well, not all of us make stuff up and attribute it to others. :roll:

No question marks, no questions, you're simply caught in another falsehood.

Bodhisattva said:
I am making up scenarios

They are called S-T-R-A-W-M-E-N.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Bodhisattva said:
I am talking about the principle, not the list.

Well then you are either off topic, or you can begin to defend the policy of the wrongly accused "rapist" being denied employment at a local school.

I'll leave the decision in the hands of the principal of the school, on site, where it belongs.

Bodhisattva said:
And how is the principal supposed to know if there is not a list?

Check that applicant's criminal record ?

Bodhisattva said:
Actually, I would have all convicted rapists, murderers and child/sexual offenders put to death.

Separate topic.

The original topic can continue, and we can assume the guy is felony robbery convict, or will you not let those go either ?

Bodhisattva said:
Everything should be taken case by case...

Then why do you support a lumping category / practice like "sex-offender" and possibly the registry and law that that term is associated with ?

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
Yawn. More red herring. She is a minor that may yet live to become a citizen.

Who cares , can she vote ? ahh, red herring then.

Every person born in the USA or to a US Citizen is a citizen of the United States AT BIRTH. Did you actually not know this? She is a citizen. You say that all citizens should be able to own and carry guns. Do you think that a five-year old should be able to own and carry an AK-47 or not? Answer the freaking question.

Well, not all of us make stuff up and attribute it to others. :roll:

No question marks, no questions, you're simply caught in another falsehood.

Sorry that you don't understand it... let's move on then.

They are called S-T-R-A-W-M-E-N.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery.

Dol you even know what a Strawman is? How is a scenario or analogy or question a Strawman? I am trying to find out what you think, not tell you. Get a grip. :roll:

Well then you are either off topic, or you can begin to defend the policy of the wrongly accused "rapist" being denied employment at a local school.

What the hell are talkiing about? All of what we are talkinga bout is on the topic of regulations To 2nd Amnendment rights.

I'll leave the decision in the hands of the principal of the school, on site, where it belongs.

I am talking about a principle, not the principal. Catch up.

Check that applicant's criminal record ?

Ummm...what about your aversion to lists?

Separate topic.

Nope, just a tangent of this one, one that you seemingly were alluding to, hence my statement.

The original topic can continue, and we can assume the guy is felony robbery convict, or will you not let those go either ?

Sure they can go on and live a long and happy life... without a gun.

Then why do you support a lumping category / practice like "sex-offender" and possibly the registry and law that that term is associated with ?

Initially, you did not differentiate, once it became clear that the miscommunication for you was about "lumping" I made clear my thoughts so that you would better understand them. It is called a conversation. Read up on it... Understand it... Your hostility just will melt away... :2razz:

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
Every person born in the USA or to a US Citizen is a citizen of the United States AT BIRTH. Did you actually not know this? She is a citizen.

Can she vote ? Red herring. Talk about your daughter with someone who cares.

Bodhisattva said:
Sorry that you don't understand it... let's move on then.

It wasn't that I did not understand, it was that you claimed there was a question, where I clearly demonstrated there was not. You were caught asserting a falsehood, covering for the fact that you were fashioning a strawman.

Bodhisattva said:
Dol you even know what a Strawman is?

Indeed I do. It is when you make up things, and then claim that I said them.

Bodhisattva said:
How is a scenario or analogy or question a Strawman?

These "scenarios and analogies" are just your way of phrasing your strawman, and as I previously showed, there was no question.

Bodhisattva said:
I am trying to find out what you think, not tell you. Get a grip. :roll:

Bull. You are trying to make up claims and then attribute them to me, and I catch you and expose you at it all the time. It usually happens when I ask you for a quote of ME saying that, and you can't provide it.

Bodhisattva said:
What the hell are talkiing about?

The hypothetical problem with the registry I posted earlier :

Voidwar said:
Yawn. Say a guy gets falsely accused of rape, and qualifies for the list.

No reason to use a stupid blanket law to do the job of a pre-school principal.

Bodhisattva said:
All of what we are talkinga bout is on the topic of regulations To 2nd Amnendment rights.

Then why even mention your daughter ?

Bodhisattva said:
Ummm...what about your aversion to lists?

Already covered above, see lumping.

Bodhisattva said:
Sure they can go on and live a long and happy life... without a gun.

Bull. Many occupations require the use of firearms, or involve security risks.

A Diamond merchant needs to carry, and still would when trying to restart his business after any unrelated felony.

Your trite answer, is not nearly enough justification to violate that citizen's second amendment.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
Can she vote ? Red herring. Talk about your daughter with someone who cares.

Vote? Irrelevant. :lol:

You are talking about citizens. She is a citizen. On this point, you fail since you contradict yourself. You say that all citizens deserve the right to bear arms and now you are hedging your claim with her age. Sorry buddy... fail.

It wasn't that I did not understand, it was that you claimed there was a question, where I clearly demonstrated there was not. You were caught asserting a falsehood, covering for the fact that you were fashioning a strawman.

Indeed I do. It is when you make up things, and then claim that I said them.

I didn't claim that you said them... I am wondering if that is what you are saying, since you don't really say it. I am making an analogy to what I think that you ARE saying, in order to find out if you are, in fact, thinking what I am asking.

I see that nothing changes with you, does it?

These "scenarios and analogies" are just your way of phrasing your strawman, and as I previously showed, there was no question.

You just can't admit it, can you? :roll:

Bull. You are trying to make up claims and then attribute them to me, and I catch you and expose you at it all the time. It usually happens when I ask you for a quote of ME saying that, and you can't provide it.

More proof to the fact that you communicate poorly...

The hypothetical problem with the registry I posted earlier

Then why even mention your daughter ?:

I brought up the child owning a gun qustion prior to that...

Already covered above, see lumping.

Thats the whole point... you are OK with lists on a record, but not a list about those with a specific record to make things more concise... contradiction. Fail.

Bull. Many occupations require the use of firearms, or involve security risks.

A Diamond merchant needs to carry, and still would when trying to restart his business after any unrelated felony.

Your trite answer, is not nearly enough justification to violate that citizen's second amendment.

FAIL! What is it with you today? Same as every other day? More jobs do not require a gun than those that do. Talk about lumping! It is good when you do it, eh?

How about the Death Penalty for any felony, that way they don't get the gun like I want and they don't lose their right like you want.

You have nothing here... just a feeble emotional plea to let criminals and predators run around with guns so that they can continue to wreak havoc on society... you advocate such a staunch all or nothing view that it is pathetically illogical. *shakes head slowly* Ahhh voidwar... what are we gonna do with you?

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
Vote? Irrelevant. :lol:

You are talking about citizens.

I am talking about the neutered voting rights of those citizens convicted of felonies. She can't vote and I doubt she is a felon, so she isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. You bring up your daughter as a nitpicky red herring distraction.

She is irrelevant to the discussion, so leave her out of it.

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
I didn't claim that you said them...

OH, here you just claim I think it :

Bodhisattva said:
Minors are citizens too, apparently you think that a five year-old should be able to carry around an AK-47?

And here you claim logic dictates I feel a certain way:

Bodhisattva said:
Logic would dictate that you feel that convicted felons, while in prison, should be able to own and carry guns. This is where your logic is flawed...

The problem is, Strawman Artist, its not my logic. Its your made up crap.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
I am talking about the neutered voting rights of those citizens convicted of felonies. She can't vote and I doubt she is a felon, so she isn't relevant to the discussion at hand. You bring up your daughter as a nitpicky red herring distraction.

She is irrelevant to the discussion, so leave her out of it.

It was relevant to your broad all-encompassing statement that no citizen should be denied the right to bear arms. She is a citizen. According to you, she should be able to carry an AK-47. If you don't agree, simply modify your statements so that you don't get called on it, and consequently... completely owned on a specific point.

You have now modified your statement to include only convicted felons... they should lose their right to bear arms indefinetely.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
OH, here you just claim I think it :

And here you claim logic dictates I feel a certain way:

The problem is, Strawman Artist, its not my logic. Its your made up crap.

So now you have completely given up trying to understand simple communication. Communicating is governed by many rules, not just the few that you seem to want to dictate to me. You apparently do not understand, and that is fine... but you should really stop telling me that I am incorrect when I am certainly not. It looks silly...

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
I see that nothing changes with you, does it?
You just can't admit it, can you? :roll:

More proof to the fact that you communicate poorly...

While I can understand why it makes you personally angry at me, the fact that I make a habit out of stomping your strawman attempts is not poor communication on my part, but it is starting to demonstrate your inability to learn the lesson that strawmanning me never works. I point out your made up crap, and the fact that YOU made it up, not me, and thus are you stomped.

Bodhisattva said:
I brought up the child owning a gun qustion prior to that...

To what ? Red herring.

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 ?

Bodhisattva said:
Thats the whole point... you are OK with lists on a record, but not a list about those with a specific record to make things more concise... contradiction. Fail.

I don't have a problem with the existant system of criminal records, but I do completely disagree with sex-offender lumping, the laws towns pass to harass them, and the idiot notion that the ones we really need to watch out for, will comply at all. It is a stupid redundant blanket bit of idiocy, substituting for judgement. You defend it, you are FAIL.

Bodhisattva said:
More jobs do not require a gun than those that do.

Not your place to decide his profession, and regardless he has the right to defend himself and his home.

Bodhisattva said:
How about the Death Penalty for any felony, that way they don't get the gun like I want and they don't lose their right like you want.

See if anyone agrees with your suggestion.

Till then, address the neutering of the robber's suffrage and second.

Bodhisattva said:
You have nothing here... just a feeble emotional plea to let criminals and predators run around with guns so that they can continue to wreak havoc on society...

Look at you. Who is emotional ? :3oops: Namecalling and deriding of your fellow citizen.

Is it not possible for your fellow citizen to make a mistake, or mend their ways ?

Bodhisattva said:
you advocate such a staunch all or nothing view that it is pathetically illogical.

:roll: You mean like you suggesting the death penalty for any felony ???:roll:

Voidwar · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
So now you have completely given up trying to understand simple communication.

Ah, so this is the part where you start crying about me, because I exposed your falsehoods and destroyed your strawman factory ?

Spare Us.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
While I can understand why it makes you personally angry at me, the fact that I make a habit out of stomping your strawman attempts is not poor communication on my part, but it is starting to demonstrate your inability to learn the lesson that strawmanning me never works. I point out your made up crap, and the fact that YOU made it up, not me, and thus are you stomped.

To what ? Red herring.

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 ?

I don't have a problem with the existant system of criminal records, but I do completely disagree with sex-offender lumping, the laws towns pass to harass them, and the idiot notion that the ones we really need to watch out for, will comply at all. It is a stupid redundant blanket bit of idiocy, substituting for judgement. You defend it, you are FAIL.

Not your place to decide his profession, and regardless he has the right to defend himself and his home.

See if anyone agrees with your suggestion.

Till then, address the neutering of the robber's suffrage and second.

Look at you. Who is emotional ? :3oops: Namecalling and deriding of your fellow citizen.

Is it not possible for your fellow citizen to make a mistake, or mend their ways ?

:roll: You mean like you suggesting the death penalty for any felony ???:roll:

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:[5]

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.

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

Voidwar said:
Ah, so this is the part where you start crying about me, because I exposed your falsehoods and destroyed your strawman factory ?

Spare Us.

:lol: ummm... what? You need to get off the drugs man, it is hurting you.

repeter · Sep 23, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
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:[5]

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.

Not wanting to get between you and Void, but I can't help but notice you are using the changable site wikipedia as a source to support your arguement. I should tell you, that my teacher is a famous biologist on that site, and helped with the discovery of Natural Selection. And my teacher is in his early 40's

Bodi · Sep 23, 2009

repeter said:
Not wanting to get between you and Void, but I can't help but notice you are using the changable site wikipedia as a source to support your arguement. I should tell you, that my teacher is a famous biologist on that site, and helped with the discovery of Natural Selection. And my teacher is in his early 40's

I know what you are saying, but wiki is accurate and the first up. I know it is accurate since I researched citizenship before moving abroad. Here it is though, and offical from the Department of State:

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.

1997

Acquisition of U.S. Citizenship by a Child Born Abroad

Voidwar · Sep 24, 2009

Bodhisattva said:
You are the one that threatened to want to personally fight me back in the day, not the other way around.

Do you have quotes to prove your outlandish claims ? Or it is just more of you making crap up, as I have exposed on this very thread ?

Bodhisattva said:
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.

Already addressed, can she vote? no ? Red Herring.

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.

Voidwar · Sep 24, 2009

If you have the guts to get back on the topic Bodi, here it is.

Voidwar said:
It is merely how it has been, and it has been an ongoing violation of our constitution. It is not logical to release a man but release him as a second class citizen with a neutered set of rights. We are supposed to have one set of equal rights for all citizens. Citizens convicted of crimes are still citizens. As such, denying them their rights, whether they be suffrage, or the right to keep and bear, or the right to buy a home for sale in an overzealous sex offender bailiwick, is unconstitutional.

Why don't you give me one good reason to disenfranchise felons ?

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 ?

Goobieman · Sep 24, 2009

Voidwar said:
So what did you ask for ? Cases ? Precedent ?
What is so hard for you to understand about these sentences ?
Precedent gains you NOTHING in a normative discussion.

I see.

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.

Should There Be Any Regulations To 2nd Amnendment Rights?

Are ANY government regulations of the 2nd Amendment acceptable?

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.

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...