"Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Sounds good to me. Of course, Mexico wasn't exporting oil to us then, and I
don't know what the consequence of that would be, but it should be fixable
if the big US business interests can be taken out of the equation. If they
aren't, it's going to be harder than hell to find most of them.


Oil is fungible. Mexico will sell it to someone.

You did leave out how certain political interests want these people made citizens since
those interests see these new voters as an advantage.

At least the ones I run into seem to be hard working adn have a strong sense of family.

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving btw.


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

'Sounds good to me. Of course, Mexico wasn't exporting oil to us then, and
I
don't know what the consequence of that would be, but it should be fixable
if the big US business interests can be taken out of the equation. If they
aren't, it's going to be harder than hell to find most of them.


Oil is fungible. Mexico will sell it to someone.

You did leave out how certain political interests want these people made
citizens since
those interests see these new voters as an advantage.

I left it out because it hasn't happened. On the other hand, agricultural
and business employers *are* hiring illegals, and providing an attraction of
jobs.


At least the ones I run into seem to be hard working adn have a strong
sense of family.

Hope you had a good Thanksgiving btw

We did, Wes, and I hope you did, too.

--
Ed Huntress

On 2009-11-27, Eregon wrote:
Ignoramus17202 wrote in
:

On 2009-11-26, Wes wrote:
Ignoramus20054 wrote:

The gunsmiths who I have seen in Illinois were rather poor. (I have
seen two)

Comparing Texas to Illinois on guns is like comparing apples to
oranges. No FOID required in Texas.

Well, FOID is (or at least was) easy to get. $5 and a one page
application.

Are you confusing a CCW (license to carry a concealed weapon) with a
Firearm Owner IDentification document/permit/license?

FOID gives you right to possess and handle guns. It is not a form of
gun registration, as FOID process does not involve mentioning anys
pecific firearms. It just allows one to buy guns and to handle them in
various contexts.

I do not like FOID, personally, but it is not particularly terrible.

Firearms Registration is an alien concept in Texas although,
occasionally, some insane Yankee idiot proposes it with the
announced aim of fattening the State coffers while actually setting
the stage for firearm confiscation and imprisonment of those folks
that were honest and dumb enough to actually register their shootin'
irons. (Whoever heard of a criminal stupid enough to register HIS
weapons?)

FOID is not a firearms registration.

The Firearms Registration issue dates back to the so-called
"Reconstruction" period following the conclusion of The War of the
Northern Agression. During this period the true face of the New England
power brokers became hideously apparent with their systematic oppression
and blatant misuse of authority.

Texas, as with many of the other former members of the Confederacy, has
first-hand evidence of the institutionalized excesses of the Federal
Government, the power-hungry, and the New England-based propaganda
machines.

This is very good. I wish that we had similar rules in Illinois, with
CCW and all.

i

On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:13:51 -0600, Ignoramus10998
wrote:

Are you confusing a CCW (license to carry a concealed weapon) with a
Firearm Owner IDentification document/permit/license?

FOID gives you right to possess and handle guns. It is not a form of
gun registration, as FOID process does not involve mentioning anys
pecific firearms. It just allows one to buy guns and to handle them in
various contexts.

I do not like FOID, personally, but it is not particularly terrible.


Except that its an utter violation of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."

So without that FOID...ones right to keep and bear arms is....utterly
unlawful. Infringed.

I fail to see anywhere in that very simple 2nd Amendment any mention
that one had to have the Governments permission to keep and bear arms.

Can you find that for me?


I can understand how you ..a Russian native of the old Soviet state..can
see that its "not particularly terrible". I as an American native..am
appalled by it.

The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the People would have arms
to prevent excesses of the Government and criminals. In effect..you
have to have Government approval to prevent government excesses, with a
FOID

That really really doesnt make a hell of a lot of sense.

Even in colonial times..if you ****ed up and went to jail or prison..on
your release..you were given your arms back. While this may be a bad
thing...it was the law. And frankly still is, under the Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed"

If one comitted crimes bad enough..one was executed and his ability to
bear arms in the future was buried with him.


Gunner


Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:13:51 -0600, Ignoramus10998
wrote:

Are you confusing a CCW (license to carry a concealed weapon) with a
Firearm Owner IDentification document/permit/license?

FOID gives you right to possess and handle guns. It is not a form of
gun registration, as FOID process does not involve mentioning anys
pecific firearms. It just allows one to buy guns and to handle them in
various contexts.

I do not like FOID, personally, but it is not particularly terrible.


Except that its an utter violation of the 2nd Amendment.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."

So without that FOID...ones right to keep and bear arms is....utterly
unlawful. Infringed.

Absolutely not, under law related to the 2nd or any other provision of the
Constitution.

D.C.'s ban on handguns is an infringement. Registration, training
requirements, limitations on when or where a right may be exercised are not,
if the latter reflect a "compelling state interest." The Court said as much
in the Heller case.

If you can exercise a right as it was intended, and if it doesn't violate a
compelling state interest, you are not being infringed under the law. It
doesn't matter how many hoops you have to jump through.


I fail to see anywhere in that very simple 2nd Amendment any mention
that one had to have the Governments permission to keep and bear arms.

Can you find that for me?

You don't need government permission to keep and bear arms. You have the
"permission." They aren't stopping you; you aren't being prevented from
owning guns.



I can understand how you ..a Russian native of the old Soviet state..can
see that its "not particularly terrible". I as an American native..am
appalled by it.

That's because you don't get it. d8-)


The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the People would have arms
to prevent excesses of the Government and criminals. In effect..you
have to have Government approval to prevent government excesses, with a
FOID

There is no "in effect." You have the approval. They're not stopping you.


That really really doesnt make a hell of a lot of sense.

That's because your understanding of ancient and honored legal principles is
something short of a full tank. g


Even in colonial times..if you ****ed up and went to jail or prison..on
your release..you were given your arms back. While this may be a bad
thing...it was the law. And frankly still is, under the Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed"

If one comitted crimes bad enough..one was executed and his ability to
bear arms in the future was buried with him.


Gunner


Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

Ignoramus10998 wrote:

FOID gives you right to possess and handle guns. It is not a form of
gun registration, as FOID process does not involve mentioning anys
pecific firearms. It just allows one to buy guns and to handle them in
various contexts.


How do you give a right?

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On 2009-11-29, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 21:13:51 -0600, Ignoramus10998
wrote:

Are you confusing a CCW (license to carry a concealed weapon) with a
Firearm Owner IDentification document/permit/license?

FOID gives you right to possess and handle guns. It is not a form of
gun registration, as FOID process does not involve mentioning anys
pecific firearms. It just allows one to buy guns and to handle them in
various contexts.

I do not like FOID, personally, but it is not particularly terrible.


Except that its an utter violation of the 2nd Amendment.

And that's why I do not like it. But practically, it is not very
inconvenient.

i

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."

So without that FOID...ones right to keep and bear arms is....utterly
unlawful. Infringed.

I fail to see anywhere in that very simple 2nd Amendment any mention
that one had to have the Governments permission to keep and bear arms.

Can you find that for me?


I can understand how you ..a Russian native of the old Soviet state..can
see that its "not particularly terrible". I as an American native..am
appalled by it.

The 2nd Amendment was written to ensure that the People would have arms
to prevent excesses of the Government and criminals. In effect..you
have to have Government approval to prevent government excesses, with a
FOID

That really really doesnt make a hell of a lot of sense.

Even in colonial times..if you ****ed up and went to jail or prison..on
your release..you were given your arms back. While this may be a bad
thing...it was the law. And frankly still is, under the Constitution.

"Shall not be infringed"

If one comitted crimes bad enough..one was executed and his ability to
bear arms in the future was buried with him.


Gunner


Gunner

"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster

Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Some of them, however, were treated as such by the Yankee Carpetbaggers
that invaded Texas after the war.
It would have been a lot simpler if we just left Texas an independent
republic, blocking counterinvasions from Mexico for the next hundred
years.
Then you could complain about Mexico instead of the United States. d8-)

Yes it would have been. If you notice, the feds are protecting the Texas
/ Mexico border,
not the Texas Rangers.

As it is, I think we are pretty well invaded now.


Wes

It's pretty hard to stop determined people who can't make a decent living.
Thanks to NAFTA and to corn price subsidies in the US, the campesinos in
Mexico's interior don't have a lot of choice, if they want a better life for
their family. They may not make up most of the illegals but they are a
significant portion of them. As for the rest, just compare wages in Mexico
and Central America with those in the US. If they can get a job here,
they're in good shape. We don't enforce workplace investigations of
illegals. How much better can an economic incentive get?

Under those circumstances, we're trying to block a dike with a thousand
leaks, and will continue to be, until we figure out how to deal with it.



I think a series of well placed machine gun emplacements where most of
the border crossings take place would do a lot. Hell, if a recession has
sent thousands of Mexicans scurrying back to Mexico imagine what word of
the army shooting at people coming across the border would do. But
you're right, even that wouldn't stop them all. Then again, we don't
have to stop them all, just most of them. It's just a matter of will. If
we were actually serious we could stop the migration in no time at all.
But we're not serious. Well, some of us are. Just not the ones who are
in a position to actually do something.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
news
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Some of them, however, were treated as such by the Yankee
Carpetbaggers
that invaded Texas after the war.
It would have been a lot simpler if we just left Texas an independent
republic, blocking counterinvasions from Mexico for the next hundred
years.
Then you could complain about Mexico instead of the United States. d8-)

Yes it would have been. If you notice, the feds are protecting the
Texas / Mexico border,
not the Texas Rangers.

As it is, I think we are pretty well invaded now.


Wes

It's pretty hard to stop determined people who can't make a decent
living. Thanks to NAFTA and to corn price subsidies in the US, the
campesinos in Mexico's interior don't have a lot of choice, if they want
a better life for their family. They may not make up most of the illegals
but they are a significant portion of them. As for the rest, just compare
wages in Mexico and Central America with those in the US. If they can get
a job here, they're in good shape. We don't enforce workplace
investigations of illegals. How much better can an economic incentive
get?

Under those circumstances, we're trying to block a dike with a thousand
leaks, and will continue to be, until we figure out how to deal with it.



I think a series of well placed machine gun emplacements where most of the
border crossings take place would do a lot. Hell, if a recession has sent
thousands of Mexicans scurrying back to Mexico imagine what word of the
army shooting at people coming across the border would do. But you're
right, even that wouldn't stop them all. Then again, we don't have to stop
them all, just most of them. It's just a matter of will. If we were
actually serious we could stop the migration in no time at all. But we're
not serious. Well, some of us are. Just not the ones who are in a position
to actually do something.

Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start throwing
their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start piling up within
a month.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:47:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start throwing
their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start piling up within
a month.


Since the end of February 2008 in the UK, it is an offence for _any_ employer
to employ _any_ new employee without seeing and keeping copies of specified
documents that prove the employee's right to work in the UK.

Don't know what the long term effect is going to be, but it's certainly being
applied by honest employers.


Mark Rand
RTFM

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:47:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start
throwing
their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start piling up
within
a month.


Since the end of February 2008 in the UK, it is an offence for _any_
employer
to employ _any_ new employee without seeing and keeping copies of
specified
documents that prove the employee's right to work in the UK.

Don't know what the long term effect is going to be, but it's certainly
being
applied by honest employers.


Mark Rand
RTFM

Good luck with it. As you probably know, here there are too many politically
connected, moneyed interests for having cheap labor that doesn't complain
about violation of labor laws. They'll kill anything that looks like it will
work, and it's been that way for decades.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:21:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Mark Rand" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:47:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start
throwing
their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start piling up
within
a month.


Since the end of February 2008 in the UK, it is an offence for _any_
employer
to employ _any_ new employee without seeing and keeping copies of
specified
documents that prove the employee's right to work in the UK.

Don't know what the long term effect is going to be, but it's certainly
being
applied by honest employers.


Mark Rand
RTFM

Good luck with it. As you probably know, here there are too many politically
connected, moneyed interests for having cheap labor that doesn't complain
about violation of labor laws. They'll kill anything that looks like it will
work, and it's been that way for decades.
=============
Far older -- Importation of cheap labor goes back to at least the
early days of the republic and the weaving industry in New
England.
http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Mill_girls.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls
snip
The New England textile industry was rapidly expanding in the
1850s and 1860s, unable to recruit* enough Yankee women to fill
all the new jobs, textile managers turned to recent Irish famine
immigrants to supplement the workforce. During the Civil War many
of Lowell's cotton mills closed, unable to acquire bales of raw
cotton from the South. After war, the textile mills reopened,
recruiting French Canadian men and women.
snip
* note the section on the 15% wage cut imposed that resulted in
the strikes of 1834 and 1836

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
news "Ed Huntress" wrote:

Some of them, however, were treated as such by the Yankee
Carpetbaggers
that invaded Texas after the war.
It would have been a lot simpler if we just left Texas an independent
republic, blocking counterinvasions from Mexico for the next hundred
years.
Then you could complain about Mexico instead of the United States. d8-)

Yes it would have been. If you notice, the feds are protecting the
Texas / Mexico border,
not the Texas Rangers.

As it is, I think we are pretty well invaded now.


Wes
It's pretty hard to stop determined people who can't make a decent
living. Thanks to NAFTA and to corn price subsidies in the US, the
campesinos in Mexico's interior don't have a lot of choice, if they want
a better life for their family. They may not make up most of the illegals
but they are a significant portion of them. As for the rest, just compare
wages in Mexico and Central America with those in the US. If they can get
a job here, they're in good shape. We don't enforce workplace
investigations of illegals. How much better can an economic incentive
get?

Under those circumstances, we're trying to block a dike with a thousand
leaks, and will continue to be, until we figure out how to deal with it.


I think a series of well placed machine gun emplacements where most of the
border crossings take place would do a lot. Hell, if a recession has sent
thousands of Mexicans scurrying back to Mexico imagine what word of the
army shooting at people coming across the border would do. But you're
right, even that wouldn't stop them all. Then again, we don't have to stop
them all, just most of them. It's just a matter of will. If we were
actually serious we could stop the migration in no time at all. But we're
not serious. Well, some of us are. Just not the ones who are in a position
to actually do something.

Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start throwing
their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start piling up within
a month.



Throw employers in jail! Now that is an impossibility. That would mean
politicians would have to bite the hand that feeds them. You know they
will never do that. As the Chinese say, they know who it is that fills
their rice bowl.


Hawke

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Mon, 30 Nov 2009 10:21:04 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Mark Rand" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 29 Nov 2009 17:47:17 -0500, "Ed Huntress"

wrote:


Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start
throwing
their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start piling up
within
a month.

Since the end of February 2008 in the UK, it is an offence for _any_
employer
to employ _any_ new employee without seeing and keeping copies of
specified
documents that prove the employee's right to work in the UK.

Don't know what the long term effect is going to be, but it's certainly
being
applied by honest employers.


Mark Rand
RTFM
Good luck with it. As you probably know, here there are too many politically
connected, moneyed interests for having cheap labor that doesn't complain
about violation of labor laws. They'll kill anything that looks like it will
work, and it's been that way for decades.
=============
Far older -- Importation of cheap labor goes back to at least the
early days of the republic and the weaving industry in New
England.
http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Mill_girls.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowell_Mill_Girls
snip
The New England textile industry was rapidly expanding in the
1850s and 1860s, unable to recruit* enough Yankee women to fill
all the new jobs, textile managers turned to recent Irish famine
immigrants to supplement the workforce. During the Civil War many
of Lowell's cotton mills closed, unable to acquire bales of raw
cotton from the South. After war, the textile mills reopened,
recruiting French Canadian men and women.
snip
* note the section on the 15% wage cut imposed that resulted in
the strikes of 1834 and 1836




It goes back a lot longer than that. The king of England made laws that
kept the workers from other European nations from coming to England and
raising livestock there. It's not a new phenomenon. Foreigners moving to
other countries to take the jobs of the locals has been common
throughout history. So have the responses. There are plenty to choose
from. You just have to be willing to actually do something.

Hawke

"PinstripeSniper" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Screw the machine guns. We could stop it without a shot. Just start
throwing their employers in jail. The traffic to Mexico would start
piling up
within a month.

Good luck with it. As you probably know, here there are too many
politically
connected, moneyed interests for having cheap labor that doesn't complain
about violation of labor laws. They'll kill anything that looks like it
will
work, and it's been that way for decades.

I remember about 20 years ago when a bunch of prospective US
government appointees were getting shamed during screening for having
hired illegals/paying them under the table. I dunno what happened to
them beyond the shame, not getting the job and paying a fine.

I imagine many others in their demographic privately clucked
sympathetically and though "there but for the grace of...go I..."

This tells me actual jail time would be a real deterent. Of course
there would be a suitable grace period for any current offenders to
cease and desist.

I agree on all counts.

--
Ed Huntress