Wow, James are you serious here? The list would be mind boggling. The only powers the federal government has are those enumerated powers granted it, by we the people in the constitution. There are only 30 to 35 said powers depending upon how they are counted. Nowhere in those enumerated powers did we give the government the power to force us to enter into a contract or purchase a product against our will. Yet we have Obamacare.

How about the Federal Reserve and Federal Reserve Notes? Completely unconstitutional, Article 1, Section 8 says in part "To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;" and in Section 10 "make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts;" Therefore congress has unconstitutionally delegated their duty, to a private bank, which issues worthless and unconstitutional paper as our currency.

Or how about Article 4, Section 4; "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion (from all enemies foreign and domestic);" Yet Obama fails to secure the borders and even joined Mexico in a lawsuit against the State of Arizona when it attempted to do what the feds are failing to do. I'm quite certain that's a violation of the constitution.

Or lets not forget the Second Amendment, which says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Yet we have countless gun laws on the books, any one of which is infringing upon someones God given right.

The point is you're blowing smoke out your ass if you seriously believe the Federal government doesn't continually, and with malice of forethought violate the constitution at every turn. Jim, seriously, take a college course on the constitution and educate yourself before making any more such foolish statements.

Hey Tward, how's that liberal Kool Aid today?

I mostly agree with you BigBear, however as for simply swallowing the crap that the government attempts to shove down our collective throats, even Thomas Jefferson had wise words in that regard.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
~ Thomas Jefferson

And Henry David Thoreau made it an even better point.

“Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?”

― Henry David Thoreau

Okay James, believe me, I'm the last guy here you need to give a civics lecture to. I fully understand that we have hired representatives to do our work at the government level. However, do you agree with and to every law that these people we've hired to represent us do? The list of government over reaches and unconstitutional laws would fill volumes. Just because something is the law at present, doesn't necessarily mean that we the people agreed to it, for far too long we the people have been asleep and let our servants become our masters. Hardly what the founders had in mind.

As an ex-cop myself, I won't argue that every state in the union has such laws, but like many laws on the books, many are there more for revenue generation, than anything else, and as I pointed out above, are at the core, unconstitutional. The choice comes down to do you want to spend your time and money fighting or just bow to the powers that be?

Personally, if every police officer in the country belonged to Oath Keepers and followed their oath of office, there would be far fewer people getting tickets and/or arrested for laws that have to valid constitutional authority.

Yeah, it's a monster! LOL

Sorry, sometimes the fingers don't type what my brain had in mind. 4.5" was what I meant.

Although I believe that tripod straps are available, I have a collar & leash for a small/medium dog that works very well. I loop the hand loop around the thinner neck between the tripod & head, and then put the collar around the end of the legs and sling it over my shoulder. Easy & cheap.

I pointed out in my initial response that I'm wearing mine in my profile photo, albeit not really showing it off with my knee up and in the way.

When I said "Pillowy" I didn't mean padded, they are not. I simply meant that they aren't just flat, there is lots of fabric to allow the pocket to bulge when loaded.

Yes, most of the pockets are big enough to easily handle a 70-200 or slightly bigger. I typically have my 28-105 on my camera, but even at 4.5' long, and 3.5" diameter 4.5" with the tulip flare shield (again seen in my profile photo) it easily fits in the front pockets. I've usually got my 70-200, or 28-300, and my 17-35 wide in them when out and about.

The lower front pockets are 8" X 8 and pillowy enough to hold a lot of gear. The breast pockets are 6X6" and easily hold two battery trays for my Sony DSLR's.

Here are some good photos from an eBay listing...
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Domke-PhoTogs-Men-XL-Tan-Safari-Camera-Film-Photographer-Vest-Zip-Front-Mesh-/262167309445?hash=item3d0a63ac85:g:fmsAAOSwwE5WW4sg

I hate to say this, but you're what I like to call WRONG!

First you claim that "Public streets and roads are 'owned' by state and local governments". Wait, are they public, or are they state/federally owned? Well which is it? If they are public then we the public own them, right? It can't be both ways.

Let me give you a brief civics lesson. We the people are the sovereigns in this country, the state is our immediate governmental servant, and then the federal government, which is nothing but the collective representative of all these "United States" and has only certain enumerated powers granted it by the states. There are about 30 to 35 of these powers, depending upon how they are counted. Anything beyond those are, as pointed out in the 10th amendment is follows "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now if you go back to the Declaration of Independence, it says in part "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." So therefore we the people are the ultimate authority in this country. So let me ask you this, do you as a parent (assuming you are one) allow your child(ren) to grant you privileges, or do you grant them said privileges? I think most reasoning people would agree that the parent does the granting of privileges, therefore how would a government that is created by us to serve us, get the authority to grant us a privilege like say, driving? There is nothing in any state or federal constitution, granting government the authority to bestow us with "privileges", therefore the whole concept that driving is a privilege granted us by the state is ludicrous.

The states have gotten away with this for countless decades, because most of "we the people" are too ignorant of our rights and duties as citizens, to question this ill gotten authority of the omnipotent state. Whether those of you who choose to follow this unholy master choose to believe the truth or not is really irrelevant. The states, and even worse the federal government has continually encroached upon the rights and liberties of the very people whom they are supposed to serve. Until we gather up our collective balls and take back our power and put our servants back in their place, then we are stuck with inmates running the asylum.

Did you bother to read any of this? Mine or your own? Even your own link refers to "Federal Money" where does Federal Money come from? Taxes. Point one proved again.

You can go on YouTube and watch the unedited videos and if you can explain how agreeing to transfer certain parts or even whole fetuses in exchange for money is not a sale that there are an awful lot of men who shouldn't have been convicted of soliciting a prostitute because he only offered a small amount to cover the hookers costs.

Are you really an idiot, or are you just playing one on UHH?

I find it depends upon the circumstances. If lugging my bag around is more trouble than it's worth, then I use my vest, it's got something like 18 pockets, for any filters & lenses I think I might need for that particular outing. It's all close at hand and quick lens changes can be made without opening my bag and zipping it closed etc.

I've had the Domke vest for maybe 20 years and it's still in great shape and a great alternative to a bag sometimes. That's it in my profile photo.

Wow, I'm surprised you still have any breath to debate me after blowing up your date.

As for tax revenue...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-boland/planned-parenthood-got-5406-million-government-grants-fy-2013

As for selling aborted fetuses, and getting tax money...
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/09/30/planned-parenthood-ceo-confirms-it-will-not-stop-selling-body-parts-from-aborted-babies/

So are you still going to bloviate against that which the president of Planned Parenthood herself freely admits? I'm sorry if you don't like the facts, but to be fair I don't like your lies. So as usual I come for a battle of wits and all I get is a nit wit.

LMAO, you're easier than a street corner hooker. For you to insult me, I would first have to value your opinion. But by all means take you best shots, they are worth the laugh.

As for watching the full unedited videos, I have and anyone with an ounce of intellectual honesty can see that they indicate that PP does trade parts of or even full aborted fetuses for money, which is against the law. You knuckleheads can try to spin the facts any way you choose, but it doesn't change the facts.

There are countless other clinics where women can get cheep or free health care, so why is everyone so protective of a group that despite claims to the contrary does not provide even breast cancer screenings. Even Democratic congress woman Carolyn Maloney lied when she claimed that Republicans just want to prevent women from getting needed services like "cervical screening for cancer, or a mammogram, or a pap smear, or other life-saving services that are provided by Planned Parenthood.”

Interesting claim since Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards’ has repeatedly claimed, including at a Sept. 29 congressional hearing that the organization does not, in fact, offer mammograms or have mammogram machines in its clinics." As for the rest, any public health service clinic can provide those listed services, so why does PP deserve all that tax money?