wwest5829

1 hour ago, sirineou said:

 How about snipers killing suspected illegals? I think they would be cheaper than drones.

But if it has to be drones. maybe they can be like the ones in the terminator movies.

That's the way I want my country to be known worldwide as an American citizen! (said tongue in cheek for those who do not recognize my sarcasm).

14 hours ago, EVENKEEL said:

Selling off your property in homeland to fiancé new life in Thailand is definitely not a sound move. What seems like an adventure slowly turns into extreme boredom and isolation. The old fellow who builds retirement home in rice paddy in Issan is a prime candidate for resentment if he has spent most of his cash money and can't afford to get up and leave.

No offense to those of you who are happy and content in this lifestyle. 

So, just my observation. I did my reading before coming to Thailand made 2 visits in 2009 and another 2 in 2010 , staying for a month each vist. Traveled, ate, explored the possibilities. Sold all property in the US and went to investment to finance a comfortable life here. A consideration for selling all was, I am not a resident of any US state, thus no state tax. I do pay federal income tax as required of all US citizens worldwide. Approaching 7 years without regrets. Just one man's experience.

Not focused on this subject only but I reject the idea that the USA can claim extraterritorial jurisdiction over its citizens' worldwide. I look forward to Russia an/or China claiming the same rights over their citizens on US soil. Somehow I think the US government would find they would not agree...

48 minutes ago, Just1Voice said:

I'm an American, a retired Marine, and a Christian.  One who still believes in an "eye for an eye".  You take a life, you forfeit yours.  If it hurts in the process...tough shit.

 

Spoken as Christ taught.... others on the forum please note, this does not reflect all Americans thinking....

2 hours ago, BobBKK said:

No problem!  don't like it?  don't work there... many of us have signed NDA's in our career's and it's part of the 'deal' that should be considered before taking up employment. To join something with the intent to 'Rat' after they pay your salary, feed your kids and put a roof over your head seems, somewhat, shameful.

Wow! Let me guess...coming from a Republican, Trump leaning conservative direction. I take employment under a US government entity, finding out after awhile that the administration is doing something potentially illegal, immoral or fattening and you say I do not have an obligation to let the citizenry know? Ha! Fat chance. Oh, and they did me a favor hiring me? Not a mutual balanced interest? Right, great advertisemnent for why there is a need for strong unions.

1 hour ago, Langsuan Man said:

Don't worry according to Republican orthodoxy it will all trickle down 

Of course it will! ....to stockholders of all these companies profitting from the borrowed  money used to finance the recent

Republican tax law.

2 hours ago, FreddieRoyle said:

 Has this disgusting anti-Trump trolling not reached some sort of end by now? The memes and hate posts were funny for a few days after he trounced Hillary, but it's has gone beyond boring and beyond pathetic, and here we scrape the bottom of the barrel mocking his personal appearance. This whole episode will go down in history as the biggest ever mass hysteria.

 

 Smelling salts? Lithium? Get out of the echo chamber? Seriously guys, this is not healthy any more.

 Fear The Donald opened this up by his own mocking of people. He is fair game as a result.

8 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

Totally understand your feeling, but the logic is not entirely correct. There is a right to life i.e. the right to be able to protect yourself against threats to your life and this is where the argument for legal gun ownership is born. There's no such thing as a right to "be secure".  The distinction is subtle but it was fully understood at the time the 2nd Ammendment was drafted.

 

And there is no such thing as limitations on rights. How can they be rights, if we selectively choose when they apply and to which persons? A right is a right. You don't need to justify your decision to exercise or not exercise a right. 

Imagine a pedestration demanding cars be banned simply because their "right to be secure" outweighs other drivers rights to own and drive cars!!! Even if those other drivers are fully compliant with the law.  Sorry but the whole anti gun argument does not make logical sense. 

 

Those whose lives feel threatened by others should consider the legal carry of firearms. It's commonsense, criminals will look for the easiest targets, Schools as gun-free zones are simply the weakest link. 

 

And I fully understand many on the gun control side won't agree with me, but very few on the anti gun side can coherently argue their viewpoint without resorting to silly name calling. It's quite shocking how angry hateful and threatening some people on the anti gun side can be. I can't accept that law abibing people should be denied their rights because of the actions of a handfull of criminals. That's not the American way. Peace.

 

The Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides that "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

One can argue that my reading has been focused on government entities, not individuals but that does not preclude the application as I stated.

It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who famously explained the our “Right” to free speech does not give one the “ Right” to yell “ fire “ in a crowded theater when there is no fire. It is the purpose of the Supreme Court of the US to weigh out Constitutional conflicts including the balancing of “Rights”.

Rightly, I recognize the international community's amazement at the US fixation with guns. If you are not aware, here is the 2nd Amendment wording, "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." The NRA and its supporters declare that any restrictions is an attempt to take away this "Right to own guns". For those of us with the ability to think, we realize all "Rights" have reasonable limitations to protect the "Rights" of others. For my money, an American's "Right" to own an assualt weapon is outweighed by my "Right" to be secure in my person. In the interest of full disclosure, I am an American, a gun owner and hold a CDWL. I support banning the sale of these weapons and other reasonable restrictions (strong background checks, restoration of stopping those with mental issues from buying guns, etc.).