Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I did not make it up. Go try to transfer a title without a DL.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?Fox news told him so.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
Another ridiculous straw man argument. Most people would have no idea where or how to obtain a gun illegally.I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.They get them from private ownersCriminals do not go into a firearms store and legally buy a firearm.
That is why we need to register all guns
Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........
Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....
The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.
The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.
So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.
There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.
Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.
And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.
And why do you think some countries were successful with background checks?
If a person fails a background check, what is to prevent them from obtaining a gun illegally, just like people obtain drugs illegally?
All background checks do is cost money and deny some people who likely should not be denied.
For example, the main people denied by background checks are convicted felons, but what right does a democratic republic have to make people into less then full rights, especially since convicted felons likely end up living in poor and dangerous neighborhoods.
I don't think there are any departments using AK 47s, but I'll speak to the magazine capacity. He part of the organization charged with public safety. Also most of the time those weapons are locked up, not riding around with the officers.So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?Fox news told him so.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
Why do the police need a thirty round mag and an AK47?
Mark
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
Second, I really don't care what you've got in your house, just like I don't care who you sleep with or who you marry. As soon as you take that weapon out on the street you better be licensed. That's when the license comes into play.
So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?Fox news told him so.The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
Why do the police need a thirty round mag and an AK47?
Mark
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
Second, I really don't care what you've got in your house, just like I don't care who you sleep with or who you marry. As soon as you take that weapon out on the street you better be licensed. That's when the license comes into play.
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
Second, I really don't care what you've got in your house, just like I don't care who you sleep with or who you marry. As soon as you take that weapon out on the street you better be licensed. That's when the license comes into play.
Never known a state that ever required a driver's license for anything but driving.
Never lived in a state that required licensing any firearm.
The only time I got a license for a firearm was when I wanted to carry concealed.
That was $75 and a short test on the law.
Another ridiculous straw man argument. Most people would have no idea where or how to obtain a gun illegally.I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.They get them from private owners
That is why we need to register all guns
Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........
Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....
The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.
The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.
So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.
There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.
Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.
And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.
And why do you think some countries were successful with background checks?
If a person fails a background check, what is to prevent them from obtaining a gun illegally, just like people obtain drugs illegally?
All background checks do is cost money and deny some people who likely should not be denied.
For example, the main people denied by background checks are convicted felons, but what right does a democratic republic have to make people into less then full rights, especially since convicted felons likely end up living in poor and dangerous neighborhoods.
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
Second, I really don't care what you've got in your house, just like I don't care who you sleep with or who you marry. As soon as you take that weapon out on the street you better be licensed. That's when the license comes into play.
Never known a state that ever required a driver's license for anything but driving.
Never lived in a state that required licensing any firearm.
The only time I got a license for a firearm was when I wanted to carry concealed.
That was $75 and a short test on the law.
Try to open an account at a new bank without a driver's license, or a state issued ID. Let me know how far you get.
Another ridiculous straw man argument. Most people would have no idea where or how to obtain a gun illegally.I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.Gun registration doesn't do anything....all it does is lead to the next step, gun confiscation and banning.....it doesn't prevent gun crime, or mass shootings, and it doesn't help solve crime........
Canada tried to register 15 million long guns...and failed..
Canada Tried Registering Long Guns -- And Gave Up
15 million guns.....1 billion dollars...and it didn't work....
The law passed and starting in 1998 Canadians were required to have a license to own firearms and register their weapons with the government. According to Canadian researcher (and gun enthusiast) Gary Mauser, the Canada Firearms Center quickly rose to 600 employees and the cost of the effort climbed past $600 million. In 2002 Canada’s auditor general released a report saying initial cost estimates of $2 million (Canadian) had increased to $1 billion as the government tried to register the estimated 15 million guns owned by Canada’s 34 million residents.
The registry was plagued with complications like duplicate serial numbers and millions of incomplete records, Mauser reports. One person managed to register a soldering gun, demonstrating the lack of precise standards. And overshadowing the effort was the suspicion of misplaced effort: Pistols were used in 66% of gun homicides in 2011, yet they represent about 6% of the guns in Canada. Legal long guns were used in 11% of killings that year, according to Statistics Canada, while illegal weapons like sawed-off shotguns and machine guns, which by definition cannot be registered, were used in another 12%.
So the government was spending the bulk of its money — about $17 million of the Firearms Center’s $82 million annual budget — trying to register long guns when the statistics showed they weren’t the problem.
There was also the question of how registering guns was supposed to reduce crime and suicide in the first place. From 1997 to 2005, only 13% of the guns used in homicides were registered. Police studies in Canada estimated that 2-16% of guns used in crimes were stolen from legal owners and thus potentially in the registry. The bulk of the guns, Canadian officials concluded, were unregistered weapons imported illegally from the U.S. by criminal gangs.
Finally in 2011, conservatives led by Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper voted to abolish the long-gun registry and destroy all its records. Liberals argued the law had contributed to the decline in gun homicides since it was passed. But Mauser notes that gun homicides have actually been rising in recent years, from 151 in 1999 to 173 in 2009, as violent criminal gangs use guns in their drug turf wars and other disputes. As in the U.S., most gun homicides in Canada are committed by young males, many of them with criminal records. In the majority of homicides involving young males, the victim and the killer are know each other.
And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.
And why do you think some countries were successful with background checks?
If a person fails a background check, what is to prevent them from obtaining a gun illegally, just like people obtain drugs illegally?
All background checks do is cost money and deny some people who likely should not be denied.
For example, the main people denied by background checks are convicted felons, but what right does a democratic republic have to make people into less then full rights, especially since convicted felons likely end up living in poor and dangerous neighborhoods.
That is easily proven false.
All drug dealers have to be armed because they can't rely on banks or police to protect their profits.
All drug dealers I have ever know will sell you a firearm just as easily as drugs.
There is no one who does not know where to get a firearm without a background check.
Heck, most people can easily make on in a few hours.
What is really ironic is that actually a fully automatic blowback is MUCH easier to make than a single shot.
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Fallacy. I'm liberal (in the normal sense, not US neocon whack job sense) and not only do I like the police I used to be one.
I'm from NZ and live in Australia. Hardly any guns in either country. Nobody gives a shit. And I would argue toe-to-toe with any US conservative/neocon whacko that both of those countries are a lot freer than yours with or without your constitution (I'm talking in reality, not on paper. On paper, the US has a lot more freedoms. In reality? Not even close).
Another ridiculous straw man argument. Most people would have no idea where or how to obtain a gun illegally.I don't think gun registration makes any sense in a nation with more guns than there are people. Countries that were success with gun registration were countries where very few people own guns. I think the emphasis should be on background checks.Gun registration would help us track straw man purchases, unregulated private sales, and thefts.
And just because Canada failed doesn't mean we would.
And why do you think some countries were successful with background checks?
If a person fails a background check, what is to prevent them from obtaining a gun illegally, just like people obtain drugs illegally?
All background checks do is cost money and deny some people who likely should not be denied.
For example, the main people denied by background checks are convicted felons, but what right does a democratic republic have to make people into less then full rights, especially since convicted felons likely end up living in poor and dangerous neighborhoods.
That is easily proven false.
All drug dealers have to be armed because they can't rely on banks or police to protect their profits.
All drug dealers I have ever know will sell you a firearm just as easily as drugs.
There is no one who does not know where to get a firearm without a background check.
Heck, most people can easily make on in a few hours.
What is really ironic is that actually a fully automatic blowback is MUCH easier to make than a single shot.
Not really. A single shot has fewer parts.
I don't think there are any departments using AK 47s, but I'll speak to the magazine capacity. He part of the organization charged with public safety. Also most of the time those weapons are locked up, not riding around with the officers.So, why do you need a thirty round mag and an AK 47?Fox news told him so.What makes you think I don't want private citizens owning guns?
That must be it. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting (and passing into law) maximum magazine capacity. It couldn't have anything to do with some liberal cities passing laws against AR's. It couldn't have anything to do with liberals suggesting liability insurance for gun owners. It couldn't' have anything to do with liberals wanting gun manufacturers being held liable for murders committed by people using guns.
It has to do with Fox. And then you wonder why we refer to Democrats as the Uninformed Voters.
Not for hunting.
Not for target shooting.
Why?
BTW, I have a CCW and a liability policy.
Why do the police need a thirty round mag and an AK47?
Mark
The tenure among most Liberals is that they don’t like private citizens owning guns. Yet, if you had your way and everyone turned over their guns, that would leave police and criminals having guns. Liberals are also the first to attack the police. How is it you are okay with police having guns and how would you get guns from criminals?
Fallacy. I'm liberal (in the normal sense, not US neocon whack job sense) and not only do I like the police I used to be one.
I'm from NZ and live in Australia. Hardly any guns in either country. Nobody gives a shit. And I would argue toe-to-toe with any US conservative/neocon whacko that both of those countries are a lot freer than yours with or without your constitution (I'm talking in reality, not on paper. On paper, the US has a lot more freedoms. In reality? Not even close).
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.You made this up - no state requires a drivers license for the purchase, sale, or ownership of a car.Actually yes, you do need a license to buy a car from a dealer, and you need one to transfer ownership in a private sale.
A dealership MAY require a license, but not as a matter of law, and if you do not have a license, a state ID will do -- the fact you BUY a car does not in any way necessitate that you will drive it - and, of course, cars can be bought outside a dealership.
But not to own it, keep it at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.As for the rest, the second you take that car out in public you need license and insurance.
I ask again - and maybe this time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
Second, I really don't care what you've got in your house, just like I don't care who you sleep with or who you marry. As soon as you take that weapon out on the street you better be licensed. That's when the license comes into play.
If you take your weapon out on the street, it means you already are licensed with the exception of a few states and those with open carry.
First, I did not make it up. As I said, and you removed from your quote (which is kinda dishonest), try to transfer a title without a DL. You will find you cannot.You did - you cannot cite any state law that requires a DL for a transfer. Not one.I did not make it up.
-You don't need a license to buy a car, own a car or sell a car
-You don;t need a license to keep that car at your house/on private property, or to use it on private property.
I ask AGAIN - and maybe THIS time you'll answer:
When do you think a license for gun ownership would apply?
Second, I really don't care what you've got in your house, just like I don't care who you sleep with or who you marry. As soon as you take that weapon out on the street you better be licensed. That's when the license comes into play.
Never known a state that ever required a driver's license for anything but driving.
Never lived in a state that required licensing any firearm.
The only time I got a license for a firearm was when I wanted to carry concealed.
That was $75 and a short test on the law.
Try to open an account at a new bank without a driver's license, or a state issued ID. Let me know how far you get.
It used to be easy before 9/11, but after that, the Homeland Security regulations did make it a lot harder.
However, a social security card is actually all that can be required by law for opening a bank account.
They still may not do it these days however.
Have no tried.
