<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"><channel><title>Disqus - Latest Comments for crasch</title><link xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="http://api.friendfeed.com/2008/03#sup" href="http://disqus.com/sup/all.sup#usercomments-d7d95e4f" type="application/json"/><link>http://disqus.com/people/crasch/</link><description></description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:27:55 -0000</lastBuildDate><item><title>Re: APPLYING FOR AN H-1B VISA THIS YEAR?  KNOW ANYONE WHO IS?</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/03/18/applying-for-an-h-1b-visa-this-year-know-anyone-who-is/#comment-7425880</link><description>Who said anything about granting them access to property that's not mine?  Suppose I wanted to invite my friend Jose from Mexico City to come visit.  Here's how it would work, in the absence of immigration restrictions: &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;1) Jose buys a plane ticket on  (privately owned ) United Airlines to SFO. &lt;br&gt;2) I pick Jose up at the airport in my (private) car and take him to my (private) home. &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;See how that's done?  Peaceful, voluntary trades.  At no point, does Jose ever "access property" that isn't voluntarily granted to him.   &lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;Of course, we have immigration laws.  And as a result, immigration officers can show up with guns and threaten to kill me, Jose, and everyone else in that chain if we try to make those trades without jumping through their hoops.&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;So it's not me that's accessing property that isn't mine.  It's you, under the color of law, trying to dictate to me who I can and cannot let into my own house.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">crasch</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 23:27:55 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: APPLYING FOR AN H-1B VISA THIS YEAR?  KNOW ANYONE WHO IS?</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2009/03/18/applying-for-an-h-1b-visa-this-year-know-anyone-who-is/#comment-7422901</link><description>&lt;i&gt;However, your right to leave at your choosing does not imply a right to enter either my house or anyone else's&lt;/i&gt;&lt;br&gt;&lt;br&gt;You're very protective of your right to determine who enters your house.  Yet if I don't have to right to dictate who enters your house, why do you think you have the right to dictate who enters mine?</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">crasch</dc:creator><pubDate>Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:53:59 -0000</pubDate></item><item><title>Re: After Heller</title><link>http://www.willwilkinson.net/flybottle/2008/07/16/after-heller/#comment-919511</link><description>Henigan's probably right to an extent.  But I think gun freedom activists are quite cognizant of de facto bans due to onerous or impossible to satisfy regulations.  A right that cannot be practically exercised is no right at all.    Now that the Supreme Court has recognized gun rights as an individual right, these de facto bans can be attacked more easily.</description><dc:creator xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">crasch</dc:creator><pubDate>Thu, 17 Jul 2008 08:18:36 -0000</pubDate></item></channel></rss>