So you think that an undocumented worker...

Can you define "undocumented worker" for me? I notice how you refer to illegal aliens in the most PC term 'undocumented worker'. I can't find the definition of "undocumented worker" on dictionary.com? However, you should lookup the term: "Illegal Alien" on dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/illegal+alien) as it describes the group of people being discussed and is the correct term. "Undocumented Worker" is a made up phrase to try to sugar coat the real truth--These are people who have committed a crime by coming here avoiding the immigration laws set up, and then are illegally working, taking an american worker's job, at a time when there is already a shortage of available jobs after most of them have been shipped overseas. By definition of our federal government, they are both illegal and aliens, and the first act they committed when coming here was to show no respect for our laws. Many of them usually have to break more laws in order to work, including working without a VISA, or forging SSN numbers, and in many cases Tax evasion.

So you think that an undocumented worker is going to risk jail and deportation to impersonate someone to cast a single vote? People that are not registered voters cannot vote. So if you are undocumented, the only way you could register to vote is to impersonate someone.

In short, yes, many of them will, especially if some kind of 'amnesty' was up for a vote. Or other hot-button topic that benifits your so called "undocumented workers". I'm not going to say ALL of them would, as I wouldn't paint that broad of brush, but when you have a group of 15M to 30M people, statistics say a portion of those would. Aren't they already risking jail and deportation everyday just being here? In actuallity, we both know that the last few years, they have almost a zero chance of being deported, even if arrested for another crime. ICE has practically been ordered to halt all deportations except the most problem offenders. Even gang bangers who are arrested don't get deported anymore. So that stopped being a major threat a long time ago. Have any of those "kids" that we heard about in the news recently been deported? Nope, not one. and I say "kids" in quotes, because they include people up to the age of 21, while we are being led to believe they are all 8-10 year olds in the news reports.

But lets say that is true. Tens of thousands of undocumented workers are impersonating citizens, trying to change the outcome of our elections. You don't think that elections officials would find out pretty quick, when "John Smith of 1234 Street" voted twice?

No, not when John Smith has been dead for several years, but still remains on the voter registration rolls. This usually goes hand-in-hand with voter ID laws, that the states need to purge their databases of people no longer living in those princints due to moving away, or due to not living. Several investigations have been done, and point out that in most precincts, there are a large number of records that need to be purged, but haven't. Leaving many opportunities for people to cast ballots under someone who has either been dead, or under someone's name who has moved to another county/state but remains on the rolls due to poor record keeping, lazyness, or ineptitude on the part of those responsible for keeping voter registration records current. I'll admit this is a seperate problem from illegal immigration, but it does go hand-in-hand with voter fraud and VoterID laws.

Even private sales are supposed to go through a registered FFL. The private sales is basically parking lot deals, off the record. This can happen anywhere at any time, but gets called a "gun show loophole". The people who do this are going around the gun show, and any dealers participating in the gun show.

Yes, but if you shoot an intruder trying to rape you, you better believe the police will be there pronto at that point for some reason.

In 1968, the U.K. passed laws that reduced the number of licensed firearm owners, and thus reduced firearm availability. U.K. homicide rates have steadily risen since then. 9 Ironically, firearm use in crimes has doubled in the decade after the U.K. banned handguns.

Many of the countries with the strictest gun control have the highest rates of violent crime. Australia and England, which have virtually banned gun ownership, have the highest rates of robbery, sexual assault, and assault with force of the top 17 industrialized countries.

The BCS has been reporting a declining crime rate in the UK while police reporting has shown an increase. The BCS has routinely been criticized because it under reports crime due to the following factors:

Murdered and imprisoned people do not answer surveys
Some crimes are not surveyed when victims are below age 16 3
Crime against institutions (bank robbery, etc.) are not included
Crimes are recorded at final disposition (conviction/acquittal), leaving many crimes completely unreported


statistic link: http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

Screw the cost of machining and all that. If interested, just go to: http://aresarmor.com/store/Ite... and get yourself a polymer 80% lower that for less than $100 that comes with a jig, and can be finished with a normal drill and/or a dremel tool. Done. Might not hold up to abuse as good as an aluminum lower, but some manufacturers are selling guns with polymer based lowers, so it still holds up to shooting just fine.

BTW, if you want your untraceable "ghost" 1911 handgun, that place sells 80% 1911 kits as well.

I would second this, the NRA stands on the side of the topics I would want it to stand as a member. So does CalGuns.org, and so does CRPA (both California versions of the NRA).

The ATF legally controls the receivers due to 1 fact about the receivers, they control the "firing mechanism" or "trigger/firing control group". That's the real and only reason.

This is also the difference between an stripped, serialized and ATF tracked lower receiver, and an 80% lower (which the ATF considers a hunk of metal and not a firearm). In an 80% lower, the receiver is completed except for a cavity that the trigger assembly is installed in, and a few holes in the receiver that are used to mount the trigger assembly. In an 80% lower, it is solid metal (that needs to be milled out in that small section), and in a regulated lower, it is already milled out and ready to mount a trigger assembly into it.

This small difference, to the ATF, is the difference between calling it a firearm, and calling it a peice of metal, and is also the difference between needing an FFL license to sell and being able to sell from ebay/amazon as a 'paper weight'.

It's also the difference between manufacturing a firearm or not. The companies that forge and mill an 80% receiver are NOT manufacturing a firearm. But, If 'Joe Nobody' takes a 80% receiver and uses a milling machine (or drill press) on it to hollow out the area for the fire control group, he is manufacturing a firearm.

Fact: Cross national studies show that there is no relationship to suicides rates and the availability of firearms. Two outstanding contrasts:

The U.S. and Canada – who share geography, cultural elements, and entertainment – have nearly identical suicide rates, but Canada has significantly lower gun ownership.
Lithuania – which has nearly zero gun ownership – has the world’s highest suicide rate, more than three times that of the United States.

Me thinks your a little low on ammo (based on what you said you own).

Yes, actually Every day 400,000 life-threatening violent crimes are prevented using firearms. The positives far outweigh the negatives here.

And more specifically to the point you were getting at: 71% of gunshot victims had previous arrest records (not including the suicides). Alluding to the most probable conclusion, that 71% of those shot with a firearm (killed and not-killed) were more than likely the perpetrator committing a crime.

And another statistic that also backs the previous one up, is Two-thirds of the people who die each year from gunfire are criminals being shot by other criminals.

http://www.gunfacts.info/gun-c...

That would be correct. Prior to prohibition, you could mail order a Thompson sub-machine gun (aka: "Tommy gun") full automatic from a catalog for cheap, with no background check, no waiting period (other than waiting for it in the mail), no fuss no muss.

Then, in 1934, after the gangsters had used them in crimes, the National Firearms Act was passed, which put bans and activated the "Class 3" weapons category we have today. In some states, you can still own a class3 firearm, but they are heavily regulated, cost a fortune, and require a "Tax Stamp" permit to own one.

Please post a picture where it can be found that the protesters (aka: militia) were "pointing rifles" at the federal agents. The protesters were armed, not denying that, but they were not using their guns in the fashion you described. They were carrying guns, either in holsters or on their shoulders, but not pointing and threatening the agents with them.

In fact, the Bundy ranch stand-off shows just how effectual armed citizens are when it comes to government agents. If the protesters had not been armed, do you not think that the agents wouldn't have turned it into the mass riots, tear gas, and tanks we've become all accustomed to seeing when "the people" protest and the government doesn't like it? Name another protest in recent times, where the protesters were unarmed, and were able to get the government to "back down" rather than escalating into "thuggery" and running rough shod over the protesters.

miniscule maybe, but a few dozen, no. The "dead" have been voting for years, every election. On the last election, there were pricincts with over 100% voter turnout. It's a little more than a 'few dozen'.

Since VoterID laws are not implemented, how do you know illegal aliens don't vote? No one is checking ID's, so making that claim that it ONLY happens in conservatives imaginations is completely without basis. You can't prove a negative -- nor can I prove something that isn't tracked because asking for ID is illegal when it comes to voting, but not anything else.

My point was "showing your ID" is not actually racists, we all have to do it on a constant basis for miniscule things.

With power grabs like this and others in recent times, it's very clear, that your inalienable, inherent, natural rights stops at the exact point that you are not willing to physically fight for, and die, defending them. Looking around the country, it looks like most have given them all up at this point.

Our founders realized this, and used all the tools at their disposal, politics, lawyers, letters of redress, and they didn't forget the last one, drawing a line in the sand and holding a musket, ready to use it (and possibly die) if that line was crossed.

From the dawn of time, Governments all over the world have shown only one tendency, that is to grow and grab power perpetually until they are stopped with force.

If you actually had a clue, you would realize that the voter ID laws wanted by the GOP/TeaParty, and many others in mainstream america has NOTHING to do with black people, and everything to do with the millions of illegal aliens that sneak into our country and vote Democrat because the Democrats give them everything in turn for saying they'll push for an amnesty. Without Voter ID laws, fraudulent voting is a REAL concern, as it means people are voting without being a legitimate citizen of this country (or by people who are still alligent to their homeland) and/or people are voting multiple times. Voter ID's want to curtail that.

Your argument is taken from item #1 of the democrat talking points, just re-iterating that GOP'ers don't want black people to vote. Fact, most black people already have ID's. ID's are not expensive to get in this country, and do not force out the poor. Everyone else (including white and black people) already have to have an ID and show it to do a multitude of other menial things already, and it's not considered a "burden" on blacks for the other ID requirements.

Don't know about you, but I have to show ID if I write a check, or if I cash a check, I have to show ID if I get pulled over driving. I had to show ID to get a passport. I have show ID to get a job. I have to show ID just to gain entry into some of the businesses I do work at (try going to company to do contract work and sign in at the lobby without ID). Want to buy cigarettes or liquor? Need ID. Want to buy spray paint or allergy medicine? Need ID. Want a library card? Going to an airport? Using a Credit Card for purchasing anything? Want to donate blood? Want to go to an 'R' rated movie or buy an 'M' rated video game? Need a hunting/fishing license? Want to take the SAT (or other proctored exam like CPA/MD/etc.)? Applying for food stamps, social security, or medicare? Want to buy a gun? Want to get married? Need to rent or buy a home, or car? If you need to do ANY of these things, then you need ID to do it.

Why aren't these requirements for ID considered "Racist"? The answer to this is because requiring ID is not racist, anyone LEGALLY in the country can get some form of ID. But because some in politcal power, want to pander to a very large number of people who are here illegally (regardless of race) in order to get their vote. It's this group of people who are put out and out-of-luck, which is the exact reason that there is a push for VoterID laws, too keep the system from getting corrupted by outside influence voting in OUR elections and determining OUR fate!