No "CCW " permitted for Non US Citizen's

imported post

I will say I personally don't believe that anyone should be automatically entitled to become a citizen and to be permitted all that goes with it.

Surely it should be something for us legal immigrant's to aspire to in the future, but an entitlement NO, not under any circumstances.

I just don't believe that anyone coming to this country has a right to be a US citizen, or even to residency, or that we should expect the U.S authorities to let everybody become a citizen.

I see no advantage to the people/citizen's of the U.S in making the citizenship process easier, such a move would only serve to encourage an even greater flood of illegals all wishing be become legal resident's or citizen's.

Before anyone, Myself included should be permitted to seek citizenship, there should be a mandatory residency term, and that individual should be seen to be of a positive benefit for these United State's.

But I fail to understand why the laws should be different for a legal resident.

imported post

There is a very important reason why the founders of this nation assured the rights of all people regardless of their citizenship. That was because while the king assured the rights of the citizens the king also had the power to remove citizenship. That meant that no one's rights were safe since the protections of a fair trial and against cruel punishment could be removed at the whim of the king.

Anyone that finds themselves within the borders of the USA has the rights as protected by the Constitution. That includes all immigrants, even the illegal ones.

If an illegal alien does not have the same rights that we do then our own rights can be removed on the suspicion of being in the country illegally. We could have our homes broken into without warrant, jailed without trial, all because we did not have our "papers in order".

This goes beyond just being a foreigner in our borders but all conditions placed on our right to self defense. No convicted felon should be prohibited arms once released from jail. No drug user, or abuser, should be prohibited arms. No wanted fugitive, no domestic abuser, or person dishonorably discharged from the military should be barred from the tools of self defense. Until the prohibitions on weapons are lifted then we cannot truly have unlicensed carry of weapons since there will always be some suspicion of someone meeting some condition that prohibits the tools of self defense. We all can be presumed guilty of that offense while armed until proven innocent. We will need to have our "papers" at all times to keep our rights.

Our right to life is unconditional, so should our right to protect it.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

I disagree 100%

If you want the rights guaranteed to you, naturalize, if you don't, then you have made the choice.

If you are not a citizen of this country, you should not have ownership or possession of arms.

It is certainly not against the OP at any level or those whom come here seeking a different life than their home country afforded them, but if you want the cream, step up and help milk the cows.

Click to expand...

LMTD,

Plenty of legal resident aliens are "helping to milk the cows". In addition to working hard and payingtheir taxes, the ranks of the US Armed Forces contain plenty of non-citizens. I guess that you are happy for them to defend the US overseas; yet don't recognize their God given right to defend themselves and their familywhen they gethome.

The 14th Amdrecognizes that other rights, such as the 4th and 5th apply to non-citizens, through the due process clause. SCOTUS ruled the 2nd is an individual right, therefore the same legal argument should apply, through the 14th. (I guess we'll find out when SCOTUS rules on the Chicago handgun ban).

Personally, I moved here 5 years ago to Washington State. At that time, I was prevented from possessing a firearm by our own Alien Firearms licence requirement. The catch was that the WA Dept of Licencing was refusing to issue them. This meant that we could not have a firearm in the home and therefore my wife, a US citizen, was effectively stripped of her 2nd Amd rights. I was also reduced in my ability to defend my 2 US citizen children, who are too young to defend themselves.

Thanks to the SAF, NRA and certain members of this board, WA was forced to amend state law and drop the Alien Firearms Licence requirement for permanent residents. Iremain deeplygrateful for the efforts they made on behalf of non-citizens.

imported post

Isn't beinghere illegallya crime?

I know the OP isn't an illegal immigrant but this topic has been touched upon in this thread already.

If being an illegal alien is a crime, we know that some criminals aren't afforded their full rights including a right to bear arms, so maybe this should apply to illegal aliens as well?

My personal opinion, and I know it goes against the laws as well as popular opinion, but I feel even convicted felons should be granted the right to bear arms and be able to protect themselves with the use of a firearm. I think that everyone should be able to protect themselves and should they then commit a crime with a weapon, they should be punished for that crime.

That's my opinion and I can definitely respect other's opinions to the contrary. Its also not a fight I am willing to go out on a limb and fight for either but just my own personal feeling. Ifell that convicted felons, once free from incarceration, should have all their rights restored including the right to possess and bear arms.

imported post

NavyMike wrote:

LMTD,

I guess that you are happy for them to defend the US overseas; yet don't recognize their God given right to defend themselves and their familywhen they gethome.

The 14th Amdrecognizes that other rights, such as the 4th and 5th apply to non-citizens, through the due process clause. SCOTUS ruled the 2nd is an individual right, therefore the same legal argument should apply, through the 14th. (I guess we'll find out when SCOTUS rules on the Chicago handgun ban).


Thanks to the SAF, NRA and certain members of this board, WA was forced to amend state law and drop the Alien Firearms Licence requirement for permanent residents. Iremain deeplygrateful for the efforts they made on behalf of non-citizens.

Click to expand...

NavyMike

Since I don't make presumptions about your thoughts, perhaps you could avoid doing the same regarding mine.

I think your second paragraph likely exposes some fundamental differences of opinion on how things are going to change for the better for one and all involved. For whatever reason I did not recognize this difference, but this thread has exposed it for what it is in reality.

I am glad to hear your position was supported and settled in a way that is positive for you.

The difference I am speaking about is the change in the laws that have come about for the last roughly 70 years incrementally gnawing away at the 2a rights the Constitution guarantees.

Only two branches of our government shall likely be effective in the reversal of the damage done. The legislative and the judicial as the executive is not going to be effective for a while.

Many think the changes shall come through the judicial system, I do not agree. While your comments regarding an "individual right" from the Hellar ruling, SCOTUS made it quite clear they were not impeding states / local ability to "regulate" in that same ruling. To some that is acceptable, to others it is not and that is just how it remains. The upcoming decision on the Chicago case may make that more defined and I certainly hope myself that it does and upholds a much higher standard on the governments ability to regulate, we shall see.

I personally do NOT like the judicial branch approach. Far too many variables, interpretations, opinions and frankly weasel words for lawyers to play with to distort the true meaning of what was said.

I am a fan of using the legislative branch to bring about change. It is NOT the fastest approach, however it has produces SOME results and while it may not be fast, it does not come with the far reaching negatives that a poor decision in the judicial branch can bring. In other words, a law that does not pass fails to achieve the goal but does not directly result in regression. A case that fails is not simply a loss, it is a precedent by which other decisions can be linked and a far reaching impact can spread like wild fire. The Chicago case is a fine example, if Chicago wins, it is without any doubt in my mind that THOUSANDS of cities may indeed choose to "regulate" and restrict the very people they are supposed to represent.

Since I choose to seek restoration of rights through legislation, I am forced to look at the big picture. This means one has to look not at whats right in ones own mind, but what one can sell and convince others to buy into.

Mo has a law, says OC is ok, but allows cities / counties to regulate it as they see fit. If a law came for consideration that did change this and preempted cities and counties from being able to regulate it, I would think that most would be quite happy.

If that law read similar to the existing CCW law, would you vote for it?

IE: Qualification for open carry:

(1) Is at least eighteen years of age, is a citizen of the United States and either:

(a) Has assumed residency in any state; or

(b) Is a member of the armed forces, or the spouse of such member of the military;

Its a simple question really, it is a yes or no answer. Could it be improved? Yes, I even improved it myself reducing the 23 to 18, residency requirement, or service without the Missouri requirement.

IE IE: Qualification for open carry:

(1) Is at least eighteen years of age.

(a) Has assumed residency in, or is legally visiting any state; or

(b) Is a member of the armed forces, or the spouse of such member of the military;

The second version removes the citizenship requirement. It also opens a lot more arguments of opposition. Personally I would vote YES for either one.

The problem is however, when folks talk about instant felon rights, illegal alien rights, when it comes to the gun issue, it grants the ability of spin and contains buzz words that change folks thinking away from the values they actually have and believe in based upon slick marketing tactics.

Because I lean to the legislature for the changes we seek, I am far more prone to observe my back and constantly look for the knife the Brady bunch is willing to plunge at any given moment.

It IMHO is not an effective approach for me to associate with a candidate to effect change if the anti's get to go public with headlines in the anti-press like "his contributors want to hand criminals assault weapons the day they walk out of prison as convicted felons" because the average Joe does not CARE to know what a felon is, the term to them means murder, armed robbery, criminal assault etc.

So again, without regard for popularity on the boards here, I will continue on the same quest for change as others, I will continue to evaluate thoughts not only on what is right, but how they can be spun and twisted to mean things they never did, and I will toss my money where I think it will be effective in obtaining change with the minimal risk to damage to the rights we all hold dear.

imported post

MK wrote:

My personal opinion, and I know it goes against the laws as well as popular opinion, but I feel even convicted felons should be granted the right to bear arms and be able to protect themselves with the use of a firearm. I think that everyone should be able to protect themselves and should they then commit a crime with a weapon, they should be punished for that crime.

Click to expand...

I should clarify my opinion.

I don't think its a good idea to allow people who were convicted of crimes in which they used a weapon in commission of that crime, to be able to carry weapons.

I just mean those people, who have gotten in trouble but while doing so didn't demonstrate a propensity for armed violent actions.

As far as foreigners on U.S. soil, I hope that they will be able to carry firearms. There are alot of dangerous places in America and no place is immune from violentencounters.These people should be allowed to protect themselves with deadly force while they are here.

imported post

Wow,

Perhaps I should change my nick to "threadkiller" as I thought a pretty decent conversation was taking place. Now we have almost 100 new views without comment.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

When / if you choose the become an American citizen, you are then granted all the rights and responsibilities afforded one, until then, all you get is a friendly welcome.

Click to expand...

Um, no.

This is an easy 1983 action to bring against Misouri under equal protection - similar suit succeeded in tennessee just a year or two ago - resident aliens cannot be singled out by states for treatment differenet than US citizens.

Please do move there and get that statutory discrimination quashed by a federal judge.

imported post

Yes Mike,

I think that has been established, my personal opinion was incorrect, there has been some case law that flirted around it and I was wrong, I think someone named jarad who likes half of the 2a himself pointed that out on the first page.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

Yes Mike,

I think that has been established, my personal opinion was incorrect, there has been some case law that flirted around it and I was wrong, I think someone named jarad who likes half of the 2a himself pointed that out on the first page.

Click to expand...

Most personal opinions are just like assholes. Most people have one and most of them stink.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

Yes Mike,

I think that has been established, my personal opinion was incorrect, there has been some case law that flirted around it and I was wrong, I think someone named jarad who likes half of the 2a himself pointed that out on the first page.

Click to expand...

I already told you the controlling case law. You choose to stick your head in the sand. If you were not ranting and raving about Mexican's getting free social goodies from the federal government (which is unconsitutional for the federal government to hand them out to anyone).

Your views are bigoted because you instantly went into the whole Mexican Rant (Which I agree with you but you were unable to distinguish corrupt government handouts with basic fundamental human rights) but something tells me that if it was a bunch of white people from Ontario or Manitoba who wanted a CCW permit then you would be more sympathetic.

The controlling case law is Grahm v Richardson in SCOTUS. Since you asked for more specific cases... no problem.

The Says case in Kentucky got the CCW issuance law change after it was amended to only apply to citizens.

Nevada could not limit permits to citizens only after Dorsey v LVMPD.

California's ban on non-citizens possessing pistols in PC 12021 was struck down in People v Rappard.

Michigan's racist law was struck down after an asian femalenon-citizen wanted a handgun purchase permit in Chan v City of Troy. And yes, Michigan's law was racist because the registration, purchase permit, and permit to carry requirementwere passed at the request of the Klu Klux Klan. Because god forbid if Michigan before 1997 had non-white U.S. Citizens protecting themselves.

SCOUTUS has even gone as far to say that the Bill of Rights applies to ILLEGAL ALIENS in Zadvydas v Davis.So if the Bill of Rights applies to Illegal Aliens thenat the very least, ANYlegal alien should be entiled to protection under the Second Amendment. Including non-immigrant aliens.

imported post

Jared wrote:

LMTD wrote:

Yes Mike,

I think that has been established, my personal opinion was incorrect, there has been some case law that flirted around it and I was wrong, I think someone named jarad who likes half of the 2a himself pointed that out on the first page.

Click to expand...

I already told you the controlling case law. You choose to stick your head in the sand. If you were not ranting and raving about Mexican's getting free social goodies from the federal government (which is unconsitutional for the federal government to hand them out to anyone).

Your views are bigoted because you instantly went into the whole Mexican Rant (Which I agree with you but you were unable to distinguish corrupt government handouts with basic fundamental human rights) but something tells me that if it was a bunch of white people from Ontario or Manitoba who wanted a CCW permit then you would be more sympathetic.

Click to expand...

Jared,

Your an interesting representation, that's for sure.

Let me help with your reading comprehension problems so you don't look so silly.

I never said a word about Mexicans getting free social goodies, your spinning that worse than the brady's would. I said the Mexican government shipped Mexican CRIMINALS up here to solve their over crowding prison problem.

I didn't go into any rant what so ever, I can only assume you surf about looking for a fuss and when you can not find one, you try and spin things into something they never were to create one, a really odd way to live ones life, but to each his own.

If you would have just stuck with the part where I clearly said I was wrong, you could have worn your hero hat all day long. Your choice to try and paint me as a bigot and a racist has done nothing more than make you look like an idiot of your own doing.

Go troll for another fight, this one simply is not going to happen.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

Because I do not think social security, medicaid, food stamps, HUD housing, Education, ect, ect should be provided to those whom are not citizens.

If one has applied for citizenship and is on the path then yes, all the rights guaranteed, if not even in the process, then not at all.

Click to expand...

These are your statements above. Reading doesn't seem to be a problem for me. You are comparing unconstitutional entitlements to another persons human right to defend himself.



A troll? I don't think so. I called you out for what you were saying. You've been on this message board for about 4 weeks..... I've been on here for about 4 years. If I was a troll, Mike or John would have banned me a long time ago.

Your statement was quite easy to read, all the fellow from Ireleand gets "is a warm welcome." So if he gets attacked he should just roll over and die because he's not a citizen right? If what you are saying is true, then it's not a right, and the government can take it away from anyone at anytime.



,

imported post

LMTD wrote:

Jared wrote:

LMTD wrote:

Yes Mike,

I think that has been established, my personal opinion was incorrect, there has been some case law that flirted around it and I was wrong, I think someone named jarad who likes half of the 2a himself pointed that out on the first page.

Click to expand...

I already told you the controlling case law. You choose to stick your head in the sand. If you were not ranting and raving about Mexican's getting free social goodies from the federal government (which is unconsitutional for the federal government to hand them out to anyone).

Your views are bigoted because you instantly went into the whole Mexican Rant (Which I agree with you but you were unable to distinguish corrupt government handouts with basic fundamental human rights) but something tells me that if it was a bunch of white people from Ontario or Manitoba who wanted a CCW permit then you would be more sympathetic.

Click to expand...

Jared,

Your an interesting representation, that's for sure.

Let me help with your reading comprehension problems so you don't look so silly.

I never said a word about Mexicans getting free social goodies, your spinning that worse than the brady's would. I said the Mexican government shipped Mexican CRIMINALS up here to solve their over crowding prison problem.

I didn't go into any rant what so ever, I can only assume you surf about looking for a fuss and when you can not find one, you try and spin things into something they never were to create one, a really odd way to live ones life, but to each his own.

If you would have just stuck with the part where I clearly said I was wrong, you could have worn your hero hat all day long. Your choice to try and paint me as a bigot and a racist has done nothing more than make you look like an idiot of your own doing.

Go troll for another fight, this one simply is not going to happen.

Click to expand...

Another one that stinks.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

SNIP Citizen,
I understand your point on fundamental rights to self defense. I think it is a valid point, however, its validity does not give it enough merit in the big picture in my book.
I am not a fan of foreign ownership of property here either. I stated that knowing I may get blasted again. That does not change that I am old enough to remember Japan being the purchaser of over 90% of the real estate sold in the late 80's in Hawaii,

Click to expand...

I understand.

Illegal immigration is something worth discouraging and preventing.

Denying rights to discourage immigration is in essence saying natural rights are sufficiently unimportant to use as a negotiating tactic. It also says in the same breath that natural rights are negotiable. Yet, they cannot possibly be negotiable because the arise from existence and are unalienable (can't be separated from the person). And we all know what happens when government starts thinking rights are negotiable.

Perhaps the property buyers you mentioned above were not the best example. There is a wide difference between buying sufficient property to influence elections, strong-arm local government, affect the job market, and so forth...a difference between that and self-defense. Immigrants would not be using their right to self-defense to do those things, so its nota goodcomparison.

imported post

Citizen wrote:

LMTD wrote:

SNIP Citizen,
I understand your point on fundamental rights to self defense. I think it is a valid point, however, its validity does not give it enough merit in the big picture in my book.
I am not a fan of foreign ownership of property here either. I stated that knowing I may get blasted again. That does not change that I am old enough to remember Japan being the purchaser of over 90% of the real estate sold in the late 80's in Hawaii,

Click to expand...

I understand.

Illegal immigration is something worth discouraging and preventing.

Denying rights to discourage immigration is in essence saying natural rights are sufficiently unimportant to use as a negotiating tactic. It also says in the same breath that natural rights are negotiable. Yet, they cannot possibly be negotiable because the arise from existence and are unalienable (can't be separated from the person). And we all know what happens when government starts thinking rights are negotiable.

Click to expand...

While illegal immigration is a major problem in parts of this country, it is not and has never been the immigrants fault. The government has failed to try to effectively limit it in typical government fashion, they are not really very good at anything other than our boys in the services.

I spoke with an immigrant via PM and since it was a PM I will not disclose whom, they can if they seek to do so. Within this thread a couple of points came through that frankly had never really crossed my mind. One of the first would be an alien being able to own a firearm. Now before Jared decides to blather on again, I said alien opposed to immigrant because to my mind there is a difference. Alien = citizen of another country with no intent of immigration where as an immigrant= someone in the process of becoming a US citizen.

While it was in fact incorrect, my initial response was predicated on the thought that an alien would not be able to legally obtain a firearm. However unpopular it is, was, or shall remain, I will stand firm on fighting to regain the rights that have been taken from citizens first.

Since it is determined that the citizenship requirement is in fact unconstitutional, I will most certainly bring it up within the suggestions to the legislature for a revision. If they opt to take it under consideration, good, if they do not, I have no intent on throwing a fit.

I completely understand your position on "rights" and the implied inability for the government to broach them in any way, however, I remain a realist and the fact is, they have broached, and regulated them and SCOTUS in the Heller ruling stated clearly that they could, without regard for your, my, or anyone Else's opinions.

While there are more than a few whom say 2a, the end, it is the end all do all right to firearms for anyone at any time, anywhere, that is most certainly not the case according to anyone.

Does an illegal alien whom has committed an illegal act deserve the right to self protection from criminals? Yes, there is a huge difference in breaking the law and being a criminal, I broke 4 or 5 laws today alone (I am real bad for signaling and speed limits are mere suggestions.) this does not mean I can effectivly lobby the MO state legislature to legalize illegal aliens the ability to obtain a concealed carry license, nor does it compel me to try, I have more important ways to spend my time and monies.

What is right and fair is often dynamically different than what a court decides and it is far and beyond what can be done with those whom are voted into office. While I am not a fan of "popular" votes in contrast to smart votes, our system remains the former and I can only look at what I have to work with and evaluate it where I can be most effective. Despite opinions here, it means I can never take such a hard line as Jared and can certainly not do stupid things like assume I know the race of the person I am speaking to and then seek to stereotype the like a walking talking moron.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LMTD wrote:

SNIP Citizen,
I understand your point on fundamental rights to self defense. I think it is a valid point, however, its validity does not give it enough merit in the big picture in my book.
I am not a fan of foreign ownership of property here either. I stated that knowing I may get blasted again. That does not change that I am old enough to remember Japan being the purchaser of over 90% of the real estate sold in the late 80's in Hawaii,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Now before Jared decides to blather on again, I said alien opposed to immigrant because to my mind there is a difference. Alien = citizen of another country with no intent of immigration where as an immigrant= someone in the process of becoming a US citizen.

I completely understand your position on "rights" and the implied inability for the government to broach them in any way, however, I remain a realist and the fact is, they have broached, and regulated them and SCOTUS in the Heller ruling stated clearly that they could, without regard for your, my, or anyone Else's opinions.

it means I can never take such a hard line as Jared and can certainly not do stupid things like assume I know the race of the person I am speaking to and then seek to stereotype the like a walking talking moron.

Click to expand...

See, now you are going on about Japanese owning property in Hawaii??? What are you going to come up with next.

Let me correct you on immigration law..., something else you seem to know nothing about. An Immigrant is not justsomeone who is in the process of becoming a citizen. An Immigrant is defined as an I-551 holder, (also known as a green card). An I-551 holder does not have to become a citizen and many do not due to many circumstances (mostly with their country of citizenship). To become a citizen, most people have to be an I-551 holder for 5 years and sometimes less depending on if you are married.

Someone who goes through the process to obtain a non-immigrant visa undergoes more scrutiny then someone in the U.S.A. who purchases a firearm from an FFL holder.

What "hard line" am I taking? There is nothing extreme about saying that the bill of rights (fundamental human rights) applies to all.... humans. If anyone is inspected and admitted by a CBP Officer then there is no reason the bill of rights should not cover them. Especially when the Supreme Court said they even cover illegal aliens. There is a huge difference between enjoying the bill of rights which cost the government nothing (except for a jury trial) and getting free social goodies such as welfare.

If my "blathering" is calling you out for being a bigot then so be it. I almost thought I was too harsh on you but then you went off on Japanese buying land that was for sale to anyone in Hawaii. Don't worry, you can rest easy, I don't think manyof theseforeigners that you are so scared of are running to Missouri to buy up available land.

imported post

NavyMike wrote:

LMTD,

Plenty of legal resident aliens are "helping to milk the cows". In addition to working hard and payingtheir taxes, the ranks of the US Armed Forces contain plenty of non-citizens. I guess that you are happy for them to defend the US overseas; yet don't recognize their God given right to defend themselves and their familywhen they gethome.

The 14th Amdrecognizes that other rights, such as the 4th and 5th apply to non-citizens, through the due process clause. SCOTUS ruled the 2nd is an individual right, therefore the same legal argument should apply, through the 14th. (I guess we'll find out when SCOTUS rules on the Chicago handgun ban).

Personally, I moved here 5 years ago to Washington State. At that time, I was prevented from possessing a firearm by our own Alien Firearms licence requirement. The catch was that the WA Dept of Licencing was refusing to issue them. This meant that we could not have a firearm in the home and therefore my wife, a US citizen, was effectively stripped of her 2nd Amd rights. I was also reduced in my ability to defend my 2 US citizen children, who are too young to defend themselves.

Thanks to the SAF, NRA and certain members of this board, WA was forced to amend state law and drop the Alien Firearms Licence requirement for permanent residents. Iremain deeplygrateful for the efforts they made on behalf of non-citizens.



Washington State was a problem, the lawsuit in NRA v Washington was started by myself and Grey Peterson. It was very easy to get rolling. Now the non-citizen ban only applies to a very small group of non-immigrant aliens who can still possess them by obtaining an AFL.

It took the death of an immigrant women to get the ball rolling in Washington. You see, her ex boyfriend got out of jail and carried out his threat to kill her. She was a U.K. Citizen and at the time the Licensing Division was not processing AFL's so she could not legally possess a firearm. She paid the price by getting killed.

I was born a U.S. Citizen, but I know first hand the buren on obtaining a Green Card and that many U.S. Citizens would never be able to obtain one. There are WAY MORE disqualifiers to obtaining any type of visa (immigrant or non-immigrant) than there is on passing a NICS check to purchase from an FFL.

imported post

Jared wrote:

LMTD wrote:

Citizen wrote:

LMTD wrote:

SNIP Citizen,
I understand your point on fundamental rights to self defense. I think it is a valid point, however, its validity does not give it enough merit in the big picture in my book.
I am not a fan of foreign ownership of property here either. I stated that knowing I may get blasted again. That does not change that I am old enough to remember Japan being the purchaser of over 90% of the real estate sold in the late 80's in Hawaii,

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Now before Jared decides to blather on again, I said alien opposed to immigrant because to my mind there is a difference. Alien = citizen of another country with no intent of immigration where as an immigrant= someone in the process of becoming a US citizen.

I completely understand your position on "rights" and the implied inability for the government to broach them in any way, however, I remain a realist and the fact is, they have broached, and regulated them and SCOTUS in the Heller ruling stated clearly that they could, without regard for your, my, or anyone Else's opinions.

it means I can never take such a hard line as Jared and can certainly not do stupid things like assume I know the race of the person I am speaking to and then seek to stereotype the like a walking talking moron.

Click to expand...

If my "blathering" is calling you out for being a bigot then so be it. I almost thought I was too harsh on you but then you went off on Japanese buying land that was for sale to anyone in Hawaii. Don't worry, you can rest easy, I don't think manyof theseforeigners that you are so scared of are running to Missouri to buy up available land.

Click to expand...

CLUE<==== Print it out and put it in your pocket so you have one Jared.

Because I have participated in forums for years, you live vicariously through the internet and shall continue trolling and will likely drag this across many topics in a continued effort to demonstrate to one and all just how silly you really are everyday.

I am not a bigot and you have no idea of my nationality or views on such things, you are simply a rambling jackass whom thinks that might actually bother me. Here is another clue slick, if I was a bigot, I would care even less that you noticed than I actually do myself. I simply understand you have little man syndrome and express it from behind a keyboard any time someone is not correct in what they say and you do it because you are self conscious about your own weaknesses.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance with your comments about the Japanese. They were on the verge of ownership of one of our states, they in fact owned over 50% of it at one point. I know your simple mind can not comprehend the implications of foreign ownership of the USA, but others did and do and laws were enacted to prevent the continued efforts of a country whom a few years before attacked us from buying an entire state.

I know you don't think that is a good thing, you made it clear, I know you do not fully support the right to bear arms, just the ones YOU think folks should, but your havinf a MASSIVE fail in convincing me that your anything beyond trolling for responses as it makes you feel important.

imported post

LMTD wrote:

CLUE<==== Print it out and put it in your pocket so you have one Jared.

Because I have participated in forums for years, you live vicariously through the internet and shall continue trolling and will likely drag this across many topics in a continued effort to demonstrate to one and all just how silly you really are everyday.

I am not a bigot and you have no idea of my nationality or views on such things, you are simply a rambling jackass whom thinks that might actually bother me. Here is another clue slick, if I was a bigot, I would care even less that you noticed than I actually do myself. I simply understand you have little man syndrome and express it from behind a keyboard any time someone is not correct in what they say and you do it because you are self conscious about your own weaknesses.

Again you demonstrate your ignorance with your comments about the Japanese. They were on the verge of ownership of one of our states, they in fact owned over 50% of it at one point. I know your simple mind can not comprehend the implications of foreign ownership of the USA, but others did and do and laws were enacted to prevent the continued efforts of a country whom a few years before attacked us from buying an entire state.

I know you don't think that is a good thing, you made it clear, I know you do not fully support the right to bear arms, just the ones YOU think folks should, but your havinf a MASSIVE fail in convincing me that your anything beyond trolling for responses as it makes you feel important.

Click to expand...

No, you are a bigot, you even went on again about the Japanese. I called you out for what you are and you seemed shocked that you did not get people on the board to run to your defense. That's why you backtracked in your statement, first you said non citizens should not own guns, and now you are saying that you would worry about citizens first before worrying about non-citizens.

You said I "do not fully support the right to bear arms, just the ones you think folks should" What the heck are you talking about?? Please demonstrate, point to one post to where this claim can be validated.

So now I have "little man syndrome" because I called you out for being a bigot. Make up what you want, I'm "attacking" you based on your statements and your statements alone.