HeloDude

Forgeries to process government documents are always illegal (pretty sure). But if someone is staying with family and they draft up an agreement with receipts, etc, how is this not as legal as a PIT pad?

Sorry, silly autocorrects/typos. Corrected.

I think TMO specifically says ammo doesn’t count wrt weight in a DITY.

Are you saying that family members never charge others for staying in their home? I’ve known of adult children living with their parents who are charged rent.

The court said that warning shots can be considered part of self defense if the self defense claim is warranted. If you see it differently then we’ll just have to disagree.

What’s pretty interesting is how much the left have dug their heals in on this issue the last several years. In the late 2000s, the Dems were all about calling them “legal immigrants”, and even when they switched to “undocumented” under Obama, his admin was still deporting them. Now Biden is apologizing for calling an alleged murderer, here illegally, an “illegal”, and actually trying to stop Texas from curbing illegal immigration…all during what is being called a “border crisis”. I don’t know how accurate the polling is, but from what I’ve seen, a sizable majority doesn’t seem to be with the left on this issue. Be interesting to see how this affects November, especially in non-blue states where incumbent Dem Senators are trying to hold onto their seats.

Yeah, why would courts in Ohio care about what the majority opinion of their Supreme Court was regarding this issue? Also, please tell me exactly where I said that giving a warning shot is a good idea?

Funny…here’s another article where this was written: In the Court’s lead opinion, Justice Melody Stewart stated that the Ohio self-defense law does not require an intent to harm or kill another, just the “intent to repel or escape force.” Shooting toward another with the intent to stop an aggressor is sufficient to justify a self-defense jury instruction, she concluded. https://www.courtnewsohio.gov/cases/2024/SCO/0307/221482.asp

Ummm, I’m not an attorney, but if the Ohio Supreme Court deemed him firing a warning shot was indeed self defense, then this is how the rest of the state courts are expected to rule in similar cases. As for whether I agree or disagree that warning shots are a good idea had nothing to do with my post. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/stare_decisis#:~:text=Stare decisis is the doctrine,precedent in making their decisions.

Not quite… https://ohiocapitaljournal.com/2024/03/11/decision-by-liberals-on-ohio-supreme-court-allows-for-warning-shots-to-be-fired-in-self-defense/

All you guys are such racists if you’re saying anything negative against Justice Jackson.

Nah, just negative on the government (in both parties) and my fellow citizens who no longer believe in wholesome values and personal responsibility.

What are you talking about? As of less than a month ago, Ukraine has only had 31K troops killed…don’t you believe Zelenskyy? https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-troops-killed-zelenskyy-675f53437aaf56a4d990736e85af57c4

Yeah! We’re on top! And by top…we’re talking about our debt. I’m sure our eventual economic demise was worth it. https://www.usdebtclock.org

Just so I understand the argument you’re making, and correct me if I’m wrong: People shouldn’t take a stand on an issue they deem important if they don’t have first hand experience/know someone directly dealing with said issue?

I have a feeling if a parent allows their 7 year old on a dirt bike and the kid kills themself then that parent could be charged with negligence, or worse. And we also don’t allow kids to get drunk at age 9, regardless of what their parents desires. I could give plenty of other examples. As for knowing any trans kids, I also don’t personally know any children who were the victims of statutory rape, but I know that it’s not good.

The vast majority of these children grow out of it, so why push life alternating medication and/or surgery when it’s not needed? I remember wanting to do some really stupid things when I was a child and I’m glad my parents guided me in the right direction for the most part. And none of my silly desires would have had any extreme/lasting effects such as what I mentioned above. As for creating a nanny state in the home (which is already being done but we can argue each issue separately on their own merits if you’d like), what I’m suggesting is that you make it illegal for medical providers to prescribe such medication/perform such surgeries…at least without the minimum of an extremely high bar, which obviously isn’t being done today. We need to protect children from their confusion, not support it. As for the philosophy that they’ll just be screwed ip later in life and my family won’t, then that means we shouldn’t have any protections for children…and as libertarian as I am, that is just something that doesn’t sit well with me as children cannot consent to much of anything given their intelligence level at their young age. From the article mentioned below: “A psychiatrist who has presided over youth gender transition treatments for more than a decade says “four out of five” gender-questioning children eventually accept their bodies if no medical interventions are carried out.” https://nypost.com/2023/02/22/four-out-of-five-kids-who-question-their-gender-grow-out-of-it-trans-expert/

But we made the CCP more powerful in the process, so there’s that.

I don’t think young children have the mental ability to determine what’s going on in their bodies so much that a medical provider believes they should be given puberty blockers or be mutilated. I believe then that these vulnerable children should be protected as much as possible. There’s plenty of things we don’t allow children to do just because they want to…and yet with this issue, we have adults (both parents and medical providers) pushing these children to desire such things. It’s unbelievable. Once they’re an adult and can do anything else legally (to include drink alcohol) then sure, they can do whatever they want. This is about protecting young children from those who wish to harm them.

If illegal immigration is so good for our economy and for American citizens then why are we having a “crisis”? Why are cities saying they need additional funding to help with these illegal aliens? It also wasn’t that long ago that Biden and his fellow Dems actually cared about illegal immigration…makes you wonder what changed.

Yep…the progressives are going after your kids.

I think the other guys have detailed what would have been my similar response, so need to add to it. It’s clear you don’t want to stop people from coming here illegally and it’s also clear you don’t want to make even an attempt at deporting people who are in the country illegally. We just have a huge difference of opinion when it comes to this issue.

I appreciate your honesty on the matter, but then why should someone argue with you on the details of immigration when you’re not supportive of the most basic immigration law being enforced?—ie don’t come into our country illegally. As your Christianity argument, spare me. Unless you’re also for banning prostitution, abortion, divorce, etc. Oh and Christianity doesn’t say anything about having a complete welfare state to anyone who wants to come here. As for your ancestors, did they come before the 1930s? If so, what kind of social programs at the state and federal level were available to immigrants then and earlier compared to today? You can’t have open immigration and a welfare state…even some of the most progressive western countries understand how this won’t work well.

A more easier question to ask to determine where someone stands on the overall issue is this: Should we make coming into our country without permission a crime, and at the minimum, try deport these people? Yes, resources determine how effective we can be at this, but if you don’t believe an attempt should be made where/when possible, then your answer to the above question is no. Another question to ask is that if someone wants to claim asylum but is coming in from a country they are not trying to escape, should they have to remain in that country before we determine if their asylum request is valid/approved? If someone doesn’t answer yes to both of these overall questions then it’s irrelevant discussing the smaller questions—they aren’t interested in securing the border from those who don’t want to come in the proper way.