Are you claiming that a person who works without being required to fill out an I-9 is actually working an illegitimate job?

This sounds like a bunch of baloney, or possibly something that happens in some sort of tyrannical country. Things like this don't happen within the country that I live in, where people are involved with government and demand due process and accountability from their public servants.

What you describe is one of the consequences that occur when a people either have no control, or lose control, of their government.

In this country, there are numerous remedies available when a police officer wishes to make your life difficult.

While I know you are just being funny, you might also like to know that such sensitivity training is being pursued for people way down here in the deep south.

http://www.hattiesburgamerican.com/article/20111114/NEWS01/111114016/-1/7daysarchives/Southern-Miss-students-sorority-probation-after-blackface-incident

There are other articles that explain the sensitivity and cultural education sanctions against these students, the story is starting to get too old to browse as easily as last week, so I only post a single link.

While I indeed thought that you made a good "Funny", I thought that you might also like to know that these things do actually occur and that some people do actually face the threat of "sensitivity training" for painting the face. I don't think that these students took the time to add the little white parts around the mouth, but I can't be certain, as the news media here doesn't seem to be revealing any photographic evidence.

It's not the fact that they used "non-Apple" hardware, rather that they failed to stick an "Apple label" on such hardware that made them liable.

LOL :)
I should've seen that one coming.

becoming^W

Just trying to help :)

Yes, but only if you derive income from the barter. Otherwise the IRC doesn't apply to the transaction.

You seem to be quoting the Delcaration of Independence, not the Constitution of the United States. Otherwise, I agree to the basis of your viewpoint on this. Also, the right to be protected against "unlawful search and seizure", need not be recognized as the people have a primary right to be protected against, and also seek remedy for, any unlawful act done by our government. The term should quoted as "unreasonable search and seizure". I believe that it is here that the "reinterpretation" is occurring. By making search and seizure more commonplace, it helps take away the notion of "unreasonable" to more people, searchers and victims alike. These are the types of "reinterpretation" to be aware of, as they don't require the demanding procedure to actually amend the Constitution.

Speak for yourself. I have only just begun to secure my liberty.

The idea behind regulation is not to infringe upon the right to bear arms, but to encourage those arms to be handled properly, in a way that doesn't needlessly endanger others. As it is now, with firearms, we can't have people just walking around and pointing a loaded gun at people without a just cause for doing so. Such a person would be showing that they can't assume the responsibility that comes with bearing a weapon.

This is much the same idea as with the freedom of speech being limited to not abusing it to create a panic or riot when there is no clear and present danger that requires such speech.

Nukes occupy a special niche in the known arsenal of men. You can't easily create a nuke in your backyard, so it wouldn't be too difficult to regulate the sale/transfer of components or a complete nuke to another person. The sales and transfer of nukes is already heavily regulated, and these regulations appear to be sufficient, as we haven't had an accidental deployment of them ever, or a malicious use of them (where somebody in control of the weapon used it in a way that was unauthorized). Now the regulations that are already in place can appear to be Orwellian when applied to the average Joe, but I would assume that for the most part, they are necessary to ensure they safety of the people who would likely be affected if something untoward were to happen. A person that doesn't recognize the necessity of being regulated or inspected when they are/will be in possession of a weapon that can level a whole city if accidentally fired, and sees such a policy as "too Orwellian" would be a person who would not be allowed to possess those arms.

In order for the nuke to be stored there, it would have to be resistant to such an attack. The planes that smashed into the WTC in 2001 were not very far away from Indian Point. In fact, one of the planes flew right overhead. Those towers would've withstood such an attack, which might be a reason why they weren't targeted.

But without regulation, it would probably be pretty messy if such an event were to occur.

You are absolutely right. I think that a shoulder fired anti-aircraft missile to be a vital component of a home defense arsenal. When we have enemies that use aircraft as weapons against people, it's only proper that people should be able to defend against such weapons.

The only "that's different" part that you might hear from me is from the possibility of negligence in the securing and maintenance of such weapons can be hazardous to the environment or population, and in some circumstances, it would be prudent to have laws that help encourage responsibility in securing, maintaining, and testing some of the more dangerous weapons, by making it a crime (misdemeanor or felony depending on the type of weapon) to neglect to secure a weapon properly to prevent unauthorized use, to neglect to maintain the weapon properly, or to test fire the weapon in a manner that constitutes a danger to other people or their property. I would also support periodic inspection and regulation of some of the most dangerous weapons. Such an approach would have the effect of keeping nukes from people who aren't capable of keeping them secured, while still allowing people who have the resources and capability to exercise their rights.

The jury deliberates in secret. The jury returns a verdict. Judgement in a case depends on the jury returning a verdict. The jury can arrive at a verdict through any means they desire, including determining whether a law is valid or not, whether the facts fit the law, whether the facts are actually facts, or even flipping coins. As long as they all agree on the verdict and they deliberate in secret there is nothing that can be done about this.

Juries are the most powerful entities in our government, more powerful than the legislative, executive, and judicial branches combined. No person can be convicted, or even tried, for a felony, unless first indicted by a grand jury. On top of that, no person can be convicted of any crime, felony or misdemeanor, unless a jury returns a guilty verdict, excepting crimes where there is no trial, due to a guilty plea.

The fact that you don't seem to understand this simple concept is evidence that you've been hoodwinked. As P.T. Barnum was known for saying, "a sucker is born every minute". I was also suckered by this years ago (so I'm not really picking on you, just trying to wake you up), but I've spent some time reading up on the topic, and I've learned just how bad things really are, and have been for years now.

You get shot and killed while defending your right to bear arms.

I wouldn't worry about it. Since you seem to acknowledge an unconstitutional law is a valid law in NY, this situation is unlikely to happen.

Facing the British Isles?