Should non-citizens be allowed to buy a gun in the US

Redlg155

May 21, 2003, 07:12 PM

I vote "Yes" so long as you are here as a permanent resident alien AKA "Green card holder".

Resident Aliens are allowed to join the military and fight for our country, so why shouldn't they be allowed to buy a weapon?

Unfortunately most folks don't make a distinction between a legal resident alien and one who is here illegally. The problem isn't with the folks here legally. They are most often productive citizens who contribute to this society and pay taxes.

Remember, almost all of us either came from immigrants or were immigrants at one time. As for my family, I'm the first generation out.

Good Shooting
Red

Tamara

May 21, 2003, 07:17 PM

"Herro, we are 20,000 Asian visitors who come to visit your fine kuntree. Prease to serr us miritary rifles for self-plotection while we take many picture of Gland Kanyon. Also, prease to give us direction to nearest miritary instarration."

Just curious to know if you think that includes the members of the 442nd RCT (http://www.smart.net/~samurai/442.html) or not?

Funny where you find lacists... :rolleyes:

jojo

May 21, 2003, 07:19 PM

I must say that I am quite surprised at the number of yes's. It seems odd to me that so many want to give away "rights" to illegals, or other "non-citizens"

My vote is a clear, unwavering NO

jojo

Jesse H

May 21, 2003, 07:26 PM

Definitely not. Let them wait to enjoy the rights of being a citizen. Maybe then they will actually appreciate them.

Funny. My parents appreciated those rights long before they became citizens...if they didn't they wouldn't have bothered immigrating. We probably appreciate them much more than the average American.

Oleg Volk

May 21, 2003, 07:26 PM

All humans have a right to self-protection.
That the 2nd Amendment acknowledges the right of the Americans is nice, but that document doesn't grant us any rights which non-Americans don't have.
Foreigners, be they visitors or permanent residents, ought to be able to enjoy the same basic rights we do, and in doing so gain fuller appreciation of them. That would make them better citizens later on or, if they are visitors, more inclined to change their countries' laws and customs.

cratz2

May 21, 2003, 07:36 PM

Being a first-generation 'born in America' German, I don't think that immigrants should have to be a citizen per se, but I don't personally have a problem with some sort of other requirement - either you must have been here for one year, or you must have someone that IS a citizen 'vouch' for you or something. I have no idea how this would be enforced but these days, I honestly don't believe a foreigner should be able to waltz into The United States and buy a gun the next day.

Sorry. :(

Don Gwinn

May 21, 2003, 07:52 PM

Some of the Americans I respect most were not born here. ArmySon, Lendringser, Oleg, Sal and Vida DiCarlo, my great-grandmother. . . . these are not people I don't trust with a firearm.

Marko Kloos

May 21, 2003, 07:53 PM

As far as the law goes right now, only "those with greencard or equivilent (sic)" may purchase firearms. That means you can only purchase a gun if you are an immigrant alien, not a visitor or student. Immigrant aliens, a.k.a. Green Card holders, have been subjected to a more rigorous screening process than CCW holders. Federal and local background checks, fingerprints, international check for warrants, full medical examination including AIDS test, financial liability declaration...these are the people who don't "jump the fence", and the ones you have the least to worry about. But I have a sneaking suspicion that most folks wouldn't be able to recite the difference in legal status between a W-2 visitor, an I-551 Permanent Resident, a student visa holder, and an illegal fence-jumper.

Those who voted "no" in the above poll are cordially invited to my house in order to tell me face-to-face that I have no right to self-protection of myself or my family until the freakin' INS gets off its lardy behind and issues my Certificate of Naturalization. I came here legally, I play by the rules, and I've contributed more to the tax pot since I came here than all crackhead welfare recipient citizens will contribute in their lifetimes.

Oh, what was that thing about "inalienable rights"? The Bill of Rights does not give any rights, it merely recognizes pre-existing rights of all humans, not just Americans. To speak with L. Neil Smith: Every man, woman, and responsible child has an unalienable individual, civil, Constitutional, and human right to obtain, own, and carry, openly or concealed, any weapon -- rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- any time, any place, without asking anyone's permission.

As long as I don't harm you or yours, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to deny me ownership of anything. You can, of course, try and do so, but you better get your affairs in order before you knock on my door.

Don't you folks all argue with the Antis that "bad people will always get guns, no matter what the laws"? Do you want to deny ten thousand honest immigrants the right to self-protection, because one or twenty terrorists may get a freakin' thumbhole-stocked Romak easier?

:fire:

Byron Quick

May 21, 2003, 08:04 PM

I do not "get" my right to own firearms from the 2nd Amendment. The 2nd Amendment merely tells the government to leave my ownership of firearms alone. The Bill of Rights enumerates rights that are the birthright of all human beings, everywhere.

I derive my right to own firearms from my right to life...my citizenship is absolutely irrelevant to my absolute, 100%, KYFHO, right to life.

Oh, any of you guys plan to go see lendringser, let me know. I want to be there.

Another thing, what self respecting terrorist has to come to America to buy a firearm? AK's cost how much in the third world? A chicken? And they cost how much here? Talk about hauling coal to Newcastle! Take your heads out of the tinfoil and look around every now and then.

Hot brass

May 21, 2003, 08:07 PM

If you are not a citizen YOU should not be able to purchase a firearem.

Well I might as well get started.

Not a citizen,no
welfare,
benefits,
no cheeper to go to college than US citizens,
out of country ID cards,
squating,
over staying your visa (if you have one),
voting,
free food,
housing,
mandated interperter,
free education,
driving lic,
no bullets.

:cuss: :fire:

Byron Quick

May 21, 2003, 08:11 PM

Hot Brass,

Everything you mentioned...no one should get from the government. What's your point?:D

Cannon7mm

May 21, 2003, 08:14 PM

I am a non-resident. I own property in the US and a business. Should I not have the right to defend my property and those that work for me, not to mention my wife and kids?

The "bad guys" are not going to buy their guns from a legitimate dealer. They will want them to be untracable. Heck, even felon in the country still seem to be ble to get guns. I dont' theink they buy them from a licensed dealer...right. So why should not be able to, so long as I do not have a criminal record.

Marko Kloos

May 21, 2003, 08:15 PM

Byron beat me to the punch. I think nobody should get "free government stuff", because nobody has a right to the contents of their neighbors' wallets.

Guess my primitive social conscience is not as advanced as yours, Hot brass...I haven't yet gotten used to the idea of accepting handouts from the Nanny State, and I doubt I ever will.

Hot brass

May 21, 2003, 08:20 PM

Byron Quick, exactly.
Especially non citizens.

Byron Quick

May 21, 2003, 08:24 PM

We're having some thread veer here.

The issue is firearms ownership and non-citizens not welfare and non-citizens.

Now personally, I think each and every person on earth has the right to own and bear arms either openly or concealed. I believe that any and all laws obstructing that right is nothing but an example of that government's tyranny.

Now, if your position is that such and such a person might do something nasty with that gun and, as a result of such possibility, should be prevented from owning it...well, that's just what the gun grabbers say about you . It is called prior restraint and has been noted in the US as an infringement on liberty for a couple of centuries. Perhaps some of you hadn't heard.

Or is the position, gun ownership is ok for me but not for these other untrustworthy folks who might hurt someone? Last I checked, that was Senator Feinstein's position. Nice company.

tyme

May 21, 2003, 08:28 PM

I think all alien firearms prohibitions are unenforceable without universal brady checks for all firearms transactions, and I don't believe in Brady checks at all, so the issue is moot.

But I think there are certain types of people who, in an ideal world, should not be able to own firearms. With all due respect to their right to self defense, if they're a citizen of another country I think it's legitimate to question whether their country of citizenship allows ownership of firearms. If not, and if they're not on track to gain citizenship here, what are they doing? I'm not sure government prohibition is the answer, but someone ought to be wondering what they're doing buying firearms and where their allegiance truly lies if they're from an anti-rights country and like it there well enough to retain citizenship.

There are others who I'd be more than simply suspicious about. Whether citizens or not, Hispanics who believe TX, CA, NM, and AZ are part of Aztlan should not be allowed to own firearms because State integrity is more important than individual rights. The alternative as I see it is to dissolve all national boundaries and establish a world government. With no customs barriers, cultural differences would lead to more frequent and more devastating attacks as radical groups sought to hurt other factions they perceived as jeopardizing, or responsible for the dissolution of, the radicals' Statehoods of choice. At its core, ownership of firearms allows rebellion and I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that some groups of people, e.g. citizens of Aztlan, whatever their real citizenship or lack thereof should retain that right.

Even after saying all that, I am deeply concerned about the potential to switch the roles and turn the argument against myself; if the Constitution doesn't bind anyone because it's 200 years old, or because we each have the right of self determination, etc., than why should I be able to own firearms if I could potentially take part in a rebellion against the system that was created by said Constitution, no matter how "corrupted" the rebels see it as being?

May 21, 2003, 08:29 PM

The way I see the world, everyone in it is living in various states of repression. Everyone. You, me, everyone across the globe.

How do we know they/we are repressed? Because we all (every last one of us) has certain inalienable rights with which we are endowed by our creator. All rights are drawn from the understanding that to live free is the natural state of man. Some people don't realize this and don't wish to live free and that is their choice. Some people have forfeited their rights by oppressing others. Some people created a country with a gov't who's SOLE REASON FOR EXISTANCE is to safeguard those human rights.

This country is an oasis of freedom. A place where people can live in their natural state: freedom. Not becuase they have signed some paper or passed some test, but because here in this country we respect freedom as the natrual state of man. We cherish it and encourage people to struggle toward it.

Freedom is the birthright of mankind. To live free is the highest goal one can attain. It is, IMO, the very meaning of life. Man reaches his highest potential when free. If reaching the highest potential is the best thing one can aspire to, then freedom is the most important state man can achieve. Possessing the means to resist oppressors is the most perfect representation of that birthright. To deny that means to anyone on earth (who has not of their own free will forfeited their right to live free) is denying them access to their very purpose in life.

Illegal immigration is a only a problem because we unjustly take from some and give to others, many of them markedly undeserving of charity. The solution to this is not to deny people their freedom, but to cease causing the problem by oppressing others.

- Gabe

Cannon7mm

May 21, 2003, 08:35 PM

Freedom for all...except some are more free than others...

rock jock

May 21, 2003, 08:40 PM

Funny where you find lacists
Oh my goodness, beat me till I'm black and blue. I've been un-PC. Is this the DU or THR?

Byron Quick

May 21, 2003, 08:42 PM

But I think there are certain types of people who, in an ideal world, should not be able to own firearms.

Violent criminals.
Government employees who possess firearms as a function of their job.

Hey, I've covered the entire spectrum of unjustified homicides with only two groups of people! And not only unjustified homicides committed with firearms.

JShirley

May 21, 2003, 08:43 PM

Shouldn't that be "violent criminals"? We can't exercise prior restraint on someone just because they are employed by the entity most likely to abuse our rights, can we?

Hell, I belong in the 2nd category.

P95Carry

May 21, 2003, 08:49 PM

I have been here 3 years and regard myself as every bit as much an American as my dear wife. Still on Green card for a while longer. I work and am a tax payer and can vote .... and draw no benefit from anyone.

I also feel that it is anyone's right to be able to defend him/her self.... in principle.

I would though draw the line at non-citizens gaining anything like immediate access ....... even after a mere 90 days, without supportive documentation from INS ...... and certainly not without some rigorous background check...... which might mean database searches in their home nation. These days that would not seem unfair.

9/11 has indeed changed things a lot.

Byron Quick

May 21, 2003, 08:52 PM

Based on their track record as a group, I trust no government. That's why there is a second category. Some folks don't seem to think that governments that do such are bunch of violent criminals.

To paraphrase General Sherman's comment on Indians:

I saw a good government once. It was dead.

tyme

May 21, 2003, 08:55 PM

(Byron Quick) Violent criminals. Government employees who possess firearms as a function of their job.
Not that I agree with some of the laws enforced by government, but how do you expect government, if it exists at all, to get anything accomplished without force? You think a kind word alone will cause a sinner to repent and willfully subject him or herself to the justice system? What's a government with no CJS? Seems like a corporation to me.

Byron Quick

May 21, 2003, 09:01 PM

tyme,
I'll reply by PM to avoid more thread veer.

pax

May 21, 2003, 09:19 PM

Thread veer, indeed. Trying to get it back on track:

Jojo,
I must say that I am quite surprised at the number of yes's. It seems odd to me that so many want to give away "rights" to illegals, or other "non-citizens"
I must say that I am quite surprised at the number of no's. It seems odd to me that so many want to steal the basic human rights of illegals, or other non-citizens.

Rock jock,
Oh my goodness, beat me till I'm black and blue. I've been un-PC. Is this the DU or THR?
She didn't say you were un-PC. She said you were racist. (There is a difference, as most folks realize.) And she backed it up with a link that showed the stupidity of what you said. Rather than answering her point, you answered with an ad hominem -- which, I'm sure you realize, we frown on around these parts. "PC" may be the ultimate put-down in gunny circles, but it is hardly PC to require that folks debate politely.

Personally, I doubt that the country would have gone to hell in a handbasket during WWII if we hadn't denied those slanty-eyed folks all the basic human rights we were allegedly fighting for overseas.

pax

..the Bill of Rights does not come from the people and is not subject to change by majorities. It comes from the nature of things. It declares the inalienable rights of man not only against all government but also against the people collectively. -- Walter Lippmann

Lone_Gunman

May 21, 2003, 09:39 PM

Let them have guns.

Don't let them have 747's...

There are much better ways to cause death and destruction than a puny fire arm.

Really, if a visitor cannot be trusted with a gun, then he really shouldnt be allowed to enter the country in the first place.

Barry2

May 21, 2003, 09:45 PM

I was not born here, BUT I got here as quick as I could.

I have no problem with requiring that a person be here legally. Green card...I think not. You can be here legally without one.

If after going through the legal and medical screening and being deemed acceptable to be here in the USA, why would I be treated any differently from a native?

I've had to prove I'm worthy, a native was just born here. Shouldn't I be allowed more rights not less.

Bhahahahahah that'll happ'n

Barry

Lone_Gunman

May 21, 2003, 09:53 PM

Here is a question to ponder...

What if immigrants had not been allowed to own guns in 1776?

I think we would all still be speaking English...

Well, you know what I mean.

rock jock

May 21, 2003, 10:16 PM

She didn't say you were un-PC. She said you were racist. (There is a difference, as most folks realize.) And she backed it up with a link that showed the stupidity of what you said. Rather than answering her point, you answered with an ad hominem -- which, I'm sure you realize, we frown on around these parts. "PC" may be the ultimate put-down in gunny circles, but it is hardly PC to require that folks debate politely.
Speaking of stupidity, I wish I could describe adequately my disgust at your and Tamara's comments. Her hyper-sensitivity to all things that could be even remotely construed as racist is pathetic. Mr. Sharpton would be proud. Rather than consider the jist of the post, she immediately jumped at what she perceived as racist stereotyping. With any degree of detachment, one would see it rather obviously as a little off-color humor. If you are so blinded by such a rabid sense of political correctiness that you cannot understand the post, allow me to elucidate:

The multitudes of Japanese I hypothetically refer to in my post are not citizens, or resident aliens, they are members of the Japanese military (thus the reference to them being "visitors" and their otherwise benign goal of sightseeing). IOW, (and here it comes, so get ready), Japanese soldiers (who were, I would remind you, the enemy during WWII) come to America and buy weapons here rather than bringing their own. Thus we would be facilitating their own invasion. This is called a joke, an exaggeration. It is ludicrous and by its nature is meant to underscore the ludricrous idea that we should hand guns out to anyone that walks off the boat to America and has the money to buy a gun because we may in fact be arming the very people that seek our destruction.

Now, in terms of me being racially biased against the Japanese, let me just say that if you had any inkling of my background, you would realize how ignorant that statement was. I can pretty much guarantee you that I have had more contact and a greater understanding and appreciation for the Japanese people and culture than 99% of the folks on this board. I only say that because there may in fact be a few people here of Japanese descent who actually were born and raised there. I spent many years in Japan as a child, I used to speak close to fluent Japanese, my adopted brother is Japanese, and is currently a member of the Japanese military. When he was married in a very remote part of Japan, my family were the only Americans in a crowd of over three hundred, including many who had never before met Americans. If he saw the reaction to my post, he would laugh at the comments I have received. The house i was raised in here in Texas is a virtual shrine to all things Japanese. I could go on, but I won't. Suffice it to say the reference to Al Sharpton is quite appropo. He constantly rails against anything he considers racist, which is just about everything, and even (some would say especially) against fellow black people who dare to cross the line that he has arbitraily laid down.

Ridiculous.:rolleyes:

Art Eatman

May 21, 2003, 10:37 PM

Seems to me there's one thing about all these rights that are spoken of in that package of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights: They're human rights, as we've been busy telling the whole darned world for a really long, long time.

All over TFL and here at THR, we've yapped about how well-behaved people should definitely be left alone with whatever go-bang is desired. We've yapped about self-defense as a human right. We've nattered away about felons and their losses of rights due to their misbehavior.

So, aren't well-behaved non-citizens human? And as equally human as well-behaved citizens?

Art

Jeff OTMG

May 21, 2003, 10:40 PM

Absolutely yes for a legal foreign nationals. When a foreigner is in this country then they should be awarded the full protection of our constitution, including the 2nd Amendment. Criminals can lose rights as a result of their actions and gun rights are one of those.

mercedesrules

May 21, 2003, 10:45 PM

Yep!

Thumper

May 21, 2003, 10:52 PM

I think Oleg's site is called "A Human Right"

I believe that says it pretty well.

Fly320s

May 21, 2003, 11:10 PM

I vote 'yes.'

This is why:

If I go to Germany on vacation and happen to find a mint condition HK MP5 with magical import papers that allow me to bring the weapon home, I'll buy that gun.

What if a German citizen comes to the US and finds a mint conditon M1 Garand with the same magical papers? Shouldn't the tourist be allowed to buy a gun?

I don't know about you, but a gun is just an object to me. It should be no more regulated than a stapler or a snowglobe.

Isn't that what we are all striving towards? Don't we want our elected representatives to repeal those laws that infringe on our rights to buy what we want, when we want?

Tamara

May 21, 2003, 11:29 PM

Speaking of stupidity, I wish I could describe adequately my disgust at your and Tamara's comments. Her hyper-sensitivity to all things that could be even remotely construed as racist is pathetic. Mr. Sharpton would be proud. Rather than consider the jist of the post, she immediately jumped at what she perceived as racist stereotyping.

Thank you for providing me yet another fine argument against public education. :D

"You don't agree with me! It must be because I was... um... err... un-PC! Yeah, that's it!"

Gimme a break... :rolleyes: No, it's because your argument has a substance-to-holes ratio that compares unfavorably with the head of a tennis racquet. :scrutiny:

Why don't you go to lendringser's house and collect his guns? I'd pay good friggin' money to watch that.

Ian

May 21, 2003, 11:44 PM

rock jock - That was supposed to be funny? Oh.

Jojo - I must say that I am quite surprised at the number of yes's. It seems odd to me that so many want to give away "rights" to illegals, or other "non-citizens" "Rights" are something every human possesses merely by being human, not something that can be given or conferred upon someone.

Are people afraid that non-citizens are somehow dangerous? That they're all furrin terrists, and if they can get their hands on a legal gun, they'll just start killing people? It's a rediculous notion. I swear, sometime gun-owners can be as irrational as the VPC.

Idaho

May 21, 2003, 11:45 PM

State integrity is more important than individual rights.
Yikes! :eek:

My fiance', a doctor, lives in the U.S. but is not a U.S. national, and not a green card holder. Due to the vagaries of immigration law associated with the type of visa she is working under (which would take me pages to "explain" - and I use quotes because much of the bureaucracy is beyond explanation) she cannot, at this point, become a resident alien or citizen, even by marriage. She would like very much to get citizenship, or at least a green card, but it is simply not in the cards right now. I think it is utterly ridiculous that she cannot purchase or posess a firearm. As a doctor, she holds lives literally in her hands on a daily basis, but she can't be trusted with a gun? She saves citizens, but doesn't deserve the same human rights as a citizen?

(Of course, I think that the borders should be open and immigration freely allowed - but I guess that is topic veer.)

Mr. James

May 21, 2003, 11:45 PM

The right to self-defense is, as Mr. Volk says, a HUMAN RIGHT. It is a God-given right. It inheres in us as men and women. That crumbling piece of parchment did not confer rights upon us; man has no authority to so do, nor any more authority to revoke these same rights.

You either believe in that or you don't.

Yes. As GRD said, freedom is scary; the cost may be bad men do evil things. It may even mean blood is shed. That is the cost of liberty.

Don't like it? Move to Massachusetts.

Cheers.

JackM

May 22, 2003, 02:17 AM

There was a time when I could drive down to Montana or North Dakota, buy a gun, drive home with no hassles, and save enough to pay for the gas twice over. Why is the world different now?

Bye
Jack

LawDog

May 22, 2003, 04:46 AM

It is ludicrous and by its nature is meant to underscore the ludricrous idea that we should hand guns out to anyone that walks off the boat to America and has the money to buy a gun because we may in fact be arming the very people that seek our destruction.

Tom Diaz, VPC, and now you.

What the hell is this delusion that the only place that terrorists (or foreign military) can get weapons is at American gun shows or gun stores?

Tom Diaz is busy selling the Federal Government on the ridiculous idea that Hezbollah is buying AK-47 clones at gun shows and thus we must stop selling AK-47 clones to prevent this.

I turn around, and here you are, opining that an invading army would need to buy obscenely over-priced semi-auto rifles at guns stores and/or gun shows, and to prevent supplying such an invading army we shouldn't sell guns to non-US citizens.

Are you two serious? Tell me that you're just jerking my hind leg to see if I'm wearing bells.

The Germany and Imperial Japan of your little example were First World industrialized nations at the time.

You expect me to believe -- to swallow -- that an invasion launched and backed by the money, industry and sheer bloody resources of a First World country will grind to a halt because we don't sell their soldiers semi-auto rifles??

"Curses! The Yankees won't sell us any guns! Our dastardly plans are foiled!"

"Much apologies, O Revered Leader, but we must abandon our glorious plan to invade the United States. Even though our supply houses are arm-pit deep in Soviet-supplied weapons, the American gun stores won't sell guns to our freedom fighters."

Jee-sus, Mary and Joseph.

LawDog

stevelyn

May 22, 2003, 07:51 AM

I voted "Yes-With a green card." But the poll also dosen't address any gray areas either like the example of the doctor who can't get a green card, citizenship or an answer.
Illegals are not only here in violation of the law, they are deliberately engaged in ways to get around it. Illegal imigration is a separate issue and questions as to whether they should have access to firearms is a no-brainer since we don't know what their intentions are.
Foreign nationals OTOH, who are here in good faith, have made an effort to comply with our laws, and as difficult as it is, jump through our imigration hoops, and are productive members working within our society deserve the protection of, and to excercise the same rights as we citizens have. That includes the right to self defense and access to firearms.

May 22, 2003, 09:00 AM

Owning weapons is a fundamental human right. Plenty of people on this planet don't get to own weapons due to the fact that they are oppressed. We don't oppress people in this country because this country is founded on the concept that gov't exists to protect human rights.

That is the whole freaking point of this nation. It is our purpose on earth to safeguard that concept.

Wake up.

- Gabe

mercedesrules

May 22, 2003, 10:12 AM

Idaho, who said this?
State integrity is more important than individual rights.
I can't find it. (I want to express my shock, too)

MR

Battler

May 22, 2003, 10:27 AM

I think foreigners should be banned from owning guns in the US.

Yeah.

Once on Sarah Brady's website, she mentioned that for all the gunowner talk of there being 20000 gun laws, there were really only 6 federal gun laws. I think we should roll over and give her a 7th feather for her cap.

Most foreigners wouldn't care anyway - most are socialists with no cultural history with firearms, and would vote anti-gun even. But let's take that 1 in 50 who lacks the irrational fear of guns, and punish HIM. Maybe in the 5 years he has to wait to become a citizen he'll learn the error of his ways and pick a more politically correct hobby. We would certainly get rid of the chance of having one extra NRA member messing up the works.

Most gunowners (pro-gun folk) are over-50 white guys - let's make sure we keep it that way. No sense letting growing segments of the population get all attached to firearms.

Is gun ownership a right, or a privelege? A good way of changing the former into the latter is to deny it to the unpopular. The focus of gun laws have always been to make a piece of metal carved into a gun a mystical element that exists outside of all rational approach to laws. With this, through "Foreigners don't have constitutional rights" we can deprive other individuals from the RKBA without having to simeltaneously say that because they're foreigners we can chain them up and use them as sex-pets.

I look at the "gun rights" struggle and think: "Yep, we need less gunowners. And we need to slow down the rate of new gun laws that affect ME by throwing someone else to the wolves to keep them satiated". Yep, that's what I think.

Yep, all of the above is sarcasm, which is the lowest form of wit.

So I say to any who want to ban foreigners from owning guns, I tell you what. I'll keep working on the two good decent hard-working foreigners (from the most UNLIKELY of backgrounds/culture) who I am introducing to the joy of shooting, and create 2 more people who have a "dog in the fight" for gun rights.

And you stick your name on a petition to stop me and them.

And then pat yourself for fighting to preserve what's left of the second amendment. Good job. Well done.

Cannon7mm

May 22, 2003, 10:32 AM

BRAVO!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oleg Volk

May 22, 2003, 10:35 AM

FWIW, I just got an email from a close friend of mine, a Sri-Lankan living in Hawaii...turns out he's pro-RBA and trying to do what he can towards changing hearts in minds to our favor. He's gone shooting with me in MN a couple of times, I just never realized that he actually got the importance of RKBA figured out for himself. If he ever moves to a state not occupied by leftists, should it be illegal for me to welcome him with a gift of a rifle?

Byron Quick

May 22, 2003, 11:01 AM

Oleg,

Apparently some of our comrades do not believe that foreigners have a right to own the tools necessary for self defense. The lives of non-citizens must not have the same intrinsic value as the lives of citizens.

So you people who voted no or "yes but" think that our rights are granted by the government? Remember, what the government gives with one hand, can be taken away with the other. Do you really want to go there?

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

How about a poll on how Thomas Jefferson should have done it?

Perhaps "That all US citizens are created equal"?

Or maybe,"that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights (unless you are a foreigner)"

Or "that among these are Life*, Liberty*, and the pursuit of Happiness."

*except where forbidden by law.

:barf:

Oleg Volk

May 22, 2003, 11:35 AM

There's a subtle difference between liberty and tyranny designed to our specifications. It may be a worthwile exercise to conduct in the privacy of your own mind: "Do my proposals let all others do as they may as long as they do not hurt me, or do I impose prior restraint on those I dislike?"

Nando Aqui

May 22, 2003, 12:53 PM

At first I was going to say that if, and only if the person were here legally, he/she should be able to buy a gun. But then I read the post by “Fly230s” and realized that what I was doing was trying to regulate the person him/herself from being here illegally, which is a different subject.

Yes, of course, everyone should be here legally, whether with a green-card or any other legal entry permit. I don’t think anyone would disagree with this. So let’s leave the legality of the person being here to the INS. Furthermore, if the person is here illegally, he/she really shouldn’t be able to buy anything since they are not supposed to be here in the first place!

Therefore, what the issue here needs to be narrowed down to is to whether anyone “who is here legally” should be able to buy a gun.

I say yes. As “Fly320s” said, a gun should be viewed as any other ‘object’. Anyone (again, legally here) can buy a car, a power drill, a welder, a knife, a sword, fertilizer, etc. Perhaps there are regulations and restrictions for using some of these, but that’s another story. So they should be able to buy a gun as well.

Alex
(Naturalized citizen)

Idaho

May 22, 2003, 09:48 PM

MercedesRules - it was Tyme that said it, about 1/2 way down the second page of the thread. More context:

There are others who I'd be more than simply suspicious about. Whether citizens or not, Hispanics who believe TX, CA, NM, and AZ are part of Aztlan should not be allowed to own firearms because State integrity is more important than individual rights.

Art Eatman

May 22, 2003, 09:57 PM

The best way for a state to maintain its integrity is to work at ensuring the individual rights of its citizens. The citizens, themselves, will then aid the state as to integrity, as it is then in their best interest to do so.

Simple Machiavelli 101...

Art

Byron Quick

May 22, 2003, 10:02 PM

Yep, Art.

Problem with Machiavelli is twofold: one is that folks only seem to see the iron fist stuff in "The Prince" and forget that these methods are consider the lesser way by Machiavelli. The other part of the problem is that they don't read his entire body of work: like the essays on republics.

S_O_Laban

May 23, 2003, 04:50 AM

Well this has been a most interesting thread and I feel like throwing my Livedinothercountries two cents in. Fly320s has got the right idea. For those of you still on the fence on this issue, stop and think about giving up your inherit rights when you leave this country. I should be able to purchase what ever gun I want no matter what country I happen to be in at the time. Do my rights suddenly cease to exist just because I crossed the border into Mexico? If you believe that all men have rights then your anwser has to be "yes" to the question in this thread. If OTOH you think some of us are a little "Better" than others then I guess you can sleep at night knowing your one of the "betters":evil:

Besides, as has already so saliently been pointed out, where are the "cheap non traceable Ak 47s? NOT IN THIS COUNTRY!!

We all should be able to buy whatever our electronic banker says we can afford, :D no matter where we started life.

This thread has me hungry to buy something foriegn :D

Chris Rhines

May 23, 2003, 11:06 AM

This is such a no-brainer that I'm surprised that there are three pages of debate on the topic (well, maybe not surprised, but certainly disapointed.)

Yes, non-US-citizens should be able to purchase the weapons of their choice in the US. No question about it. I don't have any problem with illegal aliens buying guns in the US. Nor, for that matter, do I have any problem with illegal aliens in general, as long at they are not attacking me or stealing my property.

Like so many contributors to this thread have stated, gun rights (nay, all rights) are universal in application. Everyone has them, simply by virtue of being alive and sapient, and no government, law, or decree is required for one to excercise them.

A while back, Pax made possibly the single most poingant statement ever seen on THR (and I paraphrase here a bit) - Your rights are only as absolute as the consistency of your moral beliefs. Translation - if you want others to take your RKBA seriously, than you'd better respect the RKBA of others, irregardless of accents, religons, or the specific third-rate, fourth-would kleptocracy that still claims them as property. Otherwise, you are as bad as Diaz and Sugarmann.

...State integrity is more important than individual rights. This almost made me physically ill.

We have seen what happens when the state exists to insure the integrity of the state. Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, China under both the Nationalists and the Communists, the list goes on. Do these sound like places you want to live? Because when the desires of the state supercede the rights of the individual, places like these are what you get. NOTHING is more important than individual rights. The concept of rights elevated humanity out of the mud, and I'm damned sure not going to toss all that away to 'maintain the integrity' of a state that is manifestly not deserving to the effort.

Sickening.

Figure it out, people. There is no middle ground any more. You are either for freedom, self-determination, and liberty for everyone, or you're a serf, stuck in the mud and determined that everyone else will join you. Make your pick.

- Chris

rock jock

May 23, 2003, 11:35 AM

I have always looked at the world community much in the same way as I do a neighborhood. Each person's house and land is a sovereign state. Everyone in that neighborhood has a God-given right to self-defense and to arm themselves as they see fit within their own borders. However, when someone comes to my house and asks if they may work on my property or enjoy the scenery of my land or learn from myself or my family, and it is not someone I know or trust, I have the right to limit the rights that person enjoys while they are within my sovereignty. If I want them disarmed, then they have a choice to either leave or remain disarmed throughout their stay, or until such time as I feel comfortable enough to trust that they are not a threat to me or my family. In this case, their God-givn rights do not disappear, rather, they are superceded by the authority of those on whose land they dwell and they do this voluntarily . It is entirely within my discretion to lift the restriction on being disarmed.

I am encouraged by the results of this poll indicating that at least a sizable minority of folks recognize that the world is not a libertarian fantasyland, that we do not live in a world of idealistic theories but one of reality where there are real dangers and real threats and that as a sovereign nation and sovereign people we have a right to protect ourselves as we see fit. I wonder sometimes if some folks around here understand the concept of sovereignty.

Sheslinger

May 23, 2003, 11:45 AM

I can't believe how many of you here do not know the difference between a green card holder and an illegal immigrant. Green card holders (permanent resident aliens) have a right to work, have to promise to serve in the military if called upon (unless religious beliefs prohibit them to), pay taxes, etc. According to some of you, though, they are second class. I am very distubed by it. It reminds me of my Communication class in college where half of my class was convinced that "all these immigrants are here taking away our jobs". Never mind that I might have better education and skill set but I am not a citizen and therefore should not be allowed to apply for the same job.

By the way, when I took my citizenship test, one of the questions is, "Whose right does the constitution protect", and I thought the answer would be "citizens" but it is, according to the INS, "all citizens and non-citizens living in the United States".

Sheslinger

May 23, 2003, 11:50 AM

Big difference between your house and the state. You exist to exercise your rights, the state exists to protect those rights. What's with all this 'world community' and 'we' crap? There is no parallel between states and people in a neighborhood. Zero. Just because I won't let you carry a gun in my house doesn't mean the state now has the power to regulate where you can carry a gun. One does not justify the other. The state is not the collective will of the people. At least not in this country it isn't. Plenty of states have tried that...it doesn't work out so well for the people on the ground.

- Gabe

May 23, 2003, 11:57 AM

the world is not a libertarian fantasyland, that we do not live in a world of idealistic theories but one of reality where there are real dangers and real threatsSpeaking of fantasyland vs. real dangers and threats: be sure and let me know when you're going to be at Lend's house to take his guns away. I wouldn't miss that for all the tea in China.

- Gabe

rock jock

May 23, 2003, 12:12 PM

Speaking of fantasyland vs. real dangers and threats: be sure and let me know when you're going to be at Lend's house to take his guns away. I wouldn't miss that for all the tea in China.
Tell me, GRD, did you take the time to even tryto understand what I wrote, or what this thread is about? No, I guess not.

May 23, 2003, 12:56 PM

You have to speak slowly to me, rock. It's tough to follow your argument from out here in fantasyland. The way I see it, you are advocating using the gov't of the United States to abridge people's natural rights based on their citizenship status in a specific country. If that's mistaken, well then I guess I'll have to have it explained to me in smaller words.

- Gabe

LawDog

May 23, 2003, 01:47 PM

I'm confused about this fantasy land business. Is this the fantasy land where the 20,000 invading Japanese soldiers were forced to resupply at a US gunstore on the way to attack a "mirritary instirration"?

For the record, I'm not a Libertarian, I'm a Constitutionalist, therefore I'm probably not part of any "Libertarian fantasy land".

I believe that the Constitution is the Alpha and the Omega of the Federal Government. If it ain't in the Constitution, it doesn't fly.

Ain't nothing in the Constitution that says that the Bill of Rights only applies to citizens.

Ain't nothing in the Bill of Rights that limits those rights only to citizens.

Ain't nothing in the Second Amendment about The Right of U.S. Citizens to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed.

Ain't nothing in the Second Amendment about The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall not be Infringed, but Only after Waiting Five years, an INS Background Check, and Being Sworn in By a Judge who Wouldn't Know the Constitution if it Bit him on the Butt.

It simply says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And I'm here to tell you that denying certain people the right to Keep and Bear Arms for five years is about as infringing on that Right as you can get.

LawDog

joenuclear

May 23, 2003, 01:56 PM

The Constitution affirms a God given right to defend yourself. I can't deny someone their right to defend their life. Can you?

Chris Rhines

May 23, 2003, 04:13 PM

It's interesting, rock jock, that you would bring up the concept of sovereignty; a concept, BTW, that you yourself have no understanding whatsoever of.

The faulty part of your analogy comes in where you compare your home (which you own) to the land making up the United States (which the government does not own.) If the US government did own the land within the borders of the United States, there could be no logical argument against anything the government does. Government property, government rules, just like your home and land.

In point of fact, the government has no legitimite ownership claim on any property at all, considering the illegitimate means of acquisition. But that's a whole 'nother thread.

Like I said, freedom for all, or freedom for none. Take your pick.

- Chris

Erik

May 23, 2003, 05:36 PM

Anyone in the world may come to America and purchase a firearm. One must first, however, become an immigrant. A fine choice, by the way.

rock jock

May 23, 2003, 05:56 PM

which the government does not own
You obviously didn't understand the analogy. The homeowner in this case is equivalent to the owners of the U.S., which are in fact the citizens of the U.S., not the citizens of Mexico, Britain, China, or Greenland. As the owners of the U.S., the citizens get to decide who should decide who will be invited in and under what circumstances they may stay, including what rights may be held in suspension until they have passed muster. If they don't like it, they can leave.

BTW, I am willing to concede that full citizenship may in fact not be necessary to purchase a firearm. Certainly there are non-citizen veterans that have served this country that should get special consideration, and immigratns who have been here a sufficient period of time that they have demonstrated to a reasonable degree they are not a threat. What that period of time is, I don't really know. Maybe a year, maybe five years. It really doesn't matter because the point is, it is entirely within the perogative of the citizens of the U.S., acting through their representatives, to decide when and how non-citizens should be able to purchase and own guns.

You see Chris, its about sovereignty. You either believe in a country's sovereign rights or you believe in a one-world socialist order. Take your pick.

Oleg Volk

May 23, 2003, 06:02 PM

I think the point Chris was making was that it is both in our self-interest and plain decency and respect for the human rights of visitors to treat them the same way we treats citizens when it comes to securing means for self-defense.

mercedesrules

May 23, 2003, 06:06 PM

(Chris Rhines) The faulty part of your analogy comes in where you compare your home (which you own) to the land making up the United States (which the government does not own.) If the US government did own the land within the borders of the United States, there could be no logical argument against anything the government does. Government property, government rules, just like your home and land.

Probably, all land should be privately owned. The commons is where all of the trouble occurs: schools, roads, parks, etc.

MR

Byron Quick

May 23, 2003, 06:22 PM

You see Chris, its about sovereignty. You either believe in a country's sovereign rights or you believe in a one-world socialist order. Take your pick.

So, if I don't believe that Communist China, North Korea, and Cuba, and the other third world dictatorships have a sovereign right to disarm me then I believe in a one world socialist order? That's a hoot!

I believe in neither by your definitions, sir.

No country has the right to disarm me, I will stipulate that it has the power. But its "rights" have nothing to do with it. Its willingness to disarm me is simply one measure of how far it has sunk into tyranny.

Oh, and your analogy about a country and a homeowner is flawed from my viewpoint: no one whom I distrust with arms is coming onto my property at any time armed or unarmed. There are no such things as dangerous weapons there are only dangerous people. A person that is truly untrustworthy with arms cannot be trusted with the contents of my pantry or utility room either.

If I disarmed a person who was my guest then I would assume complete responsibility for that person's defense. If that person were murdered while disarmed at my demand then I would be just as responsible as the murderer and should suffer the same fate. I refuse to accept such responsibility. Apparently you are either willing to accept that awesome responsibility over another's life or you are willing to ignore that responsibility. The first choice is foolish. The second is contemptible.

May 23, 2003, 08:35 PM

It really doesn't matter because the point is, it is entirely within the perogative of the citizens of the U.S., acting through their representatives, to decide when and how non-citizens should be able to purchase and own guns.This is absolutely, completely and totally incorrect. It is so wrong it could not be more wrong.

My right, or anyone's right, to own a firearm is not subject to the approval of the majority.

It is a natural right. It does not matter where that majority lives or what powers they collectively decide to issue themselves via whatever vehicle or document they manage to issue that power to themselves. If 99.94% of the people in this country decided that nobody with the same last name as mine should be allowed to own a gun, I still have a right to own a gun. Even if they come and take my guns, I still have a right to own a gun. Even if they revoke my citizenship and declare me no better than a sub-human animal by unanimous vote in congress, I still have a right to own a gun. If the founders of the United States wrote: "Nobody has the Right to Own a Gun" right into the Constitution, I still would have the right to own a gun.

Why? Because I do not derive my right to own a gun from the permission of the collective or the Constitution or the gov't or the lady at the INS office or anyone or anything, save my creator. If they deny me that right, all I am is oppressed. I did not lose my right to own a gun.

If you deny someone their right to own a firearm, you are oppressing them. It's that simple. Now, you may believe (and it seems you do) that oppressing some people, some of the time, is acceptable for reasons of prior restraint or some sliding threat index that you seem to be making up as you go along. I don't. And those who don't like to be oppressed have the right to resist that oppression. And some of them will not be disarmed.

The rules in this country on who can and cannot own a weapon are not up for vote. They are not available to be legislated against. They are inalienable. You can make analogies between your house and 'our' house as a nation till you're blue in the face, but the fact remains that the majority does not rule in this country and the Bill of Rights has made it plain - guns are off limits. Period. Analogies be damned.

This is really not that hard to understand.

- Gabe

PS: I'm still waiting for a date to meet at Len's house for his summary disarming. I promise not to interfere. Or is he going to suddenly meet your arbitrary, ever-changing criteria and become category: 'Non-Citizen Who I Guess is OK, Though'.

May 23, 2003, 08:38 PM

Chris Rhines

May 23, 2003, 09:51 PM

rock jock -

As the owners of the U.S., the citizens get to decide who should decide... This is just silly. 'The citizens of the US' are not the owners of anything, nor is the 'will of the people' even germaine to the argument. Human rights are not subject to a majority vote, representive democracy, the will of the people, or any other mode of infringement. Human beings have the right to own property, including weapons. You can forbid certain classes of people from owning weapons on your property if you like, but the 'people of the US' have no such collective power, since they do not collectively own the United States (think they do? Show me a title.)

You either believe in a country's sovereign rights or you believe in a one-world socialist order. Take your pick. rock jock, are you implying that I'm a commie? Wow. Thanks then, it's been far too long since I've fallen off my chair laughing.

I suppose I should be flattered by your imitation of my literary style, but really what you said doesn't make any sense. There is no reason why I have to believe in either. Quite the contrary, in fact - I believe only in the rights of individual humans.

I get the feeling, rj, that you do understand what I (and GRD, and Byron Quick, and et all.) are saying, but you're ignoring the parts of the argument that lead you to a position you feel uncomfortable with.

mercedesrules -

I didn't want to get into the whole "government cannot legitimately own property" thing here, but you are indeed right. Property rights cannot be extended to entities that buy the property with stolen money.

- Chris

Sheslinger

May 24, 2003, 12:19 AM

Certainly there are non-citizen veterans that have served this country that should get special consideration, and immigratns who have been here a sufficient period of time that they have demonstrated to a reasonable degree they are not a threat. What that period of time is, I don't really know. Maybe a year, maybe five years. It really doesn't matter because the point is, it is entirely within the perogative of the citizens of the U.S., acting through their representatives, to decide when and how non-citizens should be able to purchase and own guns.

This is insane. Who is to decide when a US citizen is not a threat anymore? Just because you were born here does not mean that you have better morals than me. Seems to me that we are legislating what danger one could possibly be to another and how is that different from the people who want to take guns away because "someone can just go off the deep end and kill a bunch of kids"?

We need to punish the actions instead of treating everyone who has access to deadly weapon as a potential killer. Hey, maybe we should outlaw baseball players...

Sheslinger

c_yeager

May 24, 2003, 02:24 AM

Rock Jock,
"Herro, we are 20,000 Asian visitors who come to visit your fine kuntree. Prease to serr us miritary rifles for self-plotection while we take many picture of Gland Kanyon. Also, prease to give us direction to nearest miritary instarration."

When i was in school i had the pleasure of interviewing a member of the 442nd. He had been awarded the silver star if im not mistaken. He had also had his entire family placed in an internment camp because they "werent citizens". but, despite all of that he has a deeper love of this country and is owed a greater debt than most "citizens" i have met.

I notice that you have made a number of posts on this thread. But, this was your first one. I am not sure if you had anything intelligent to say or not. this quote CERTAINLY indicates that you didnt. But, frankly i dont know for sure because i have chosen to disregard everything else that you have said in this thread. And i will continue to disregard everything you have to say from now on. I consider it a show of respect to read and consider the words of another person. And you SIR, are not even close to being worthy of that respect. The fact that YOU are a citizen of this country should be evidence enough that being a citizen proves ABSOLUTLY NOTHING with concern to a persons integrity.

May 24, 2003, 04:08 AM

Classmate studying here from abroad, whom has a family that the authorities have confiscated all the family guns. The village has had some very ugly things happen, she is worried about family, especially younger sister...a favorite "pastime" with authorities are the younger girls.

[since that time all is well, the girls were hidden in caves, and such, the family's home destroyed, they have since moved]

She cited Civics better than US born citizens, she was enraged at the though of gun control and authority abusing rights.

She and her roommate ( from the same village abroad) have been shooting with me, very safe, and can handle a firearm.

So these two save their money and wanted a firearm to keep in apt. They have a K frame they share, someone needed money , someone needed a product.

I just happened to introduce both parties at the range. I knew the credibility of both. What someone does in private with their own money is none of my concern.

I think about how nice it would be if someone were to take me shooting in another land, and ,maybe ...well you know...I felt safe in my abode.

I mean after all she , her roommate, myself...are human ...

Battler

May 24, 2003, 07:18 AM

(Note - this email is not contributing to the argument but)

I just want to thank everyone responding to this discussion (and others). Whenever an issue comes up on this forum, we expose thinkers in numbers unparallelled in any other forum (and even on this forum a couple of months ago). I'm chiming out; because there are people expressing what I want to say - better than I could say it.

On this particular thread, there are people who disagree - and disagree such that I'm not even sure that there are only two sides.

But to those who disagree with eachother - the nature of disagreement is that those who disagree are operating from different premises. However, since none seem to be exhibiting any intellectual laziness that precludes rational discussion, we can work together in search of truth.

I could engage in argument with the poster on this thread with whom I most (currently) disagree on this issue, one on one, and AT THE VERY LEAST both participants would have a better understanding of their own position, thus being enriched for the experience. (Note - this is not usually the case in a typical argument).

Remember, everyone - the audience is the majority who don't post to the thread.

Keep up the good work!

Mizzoutiger

May 24, 2003, 12:00 PM

A lot of these arguments for the "No" camp make them look like Orwell's pigs playing poker.

Double Naught Spy

May 24, 2003, 01:31 PM

As per our constition, the same legal rights are there for those within our borders wether they are citizens, immigrants, visitors, etc.

rock jock

May 24, 2003, 02:26 PM

Last post on this, because this is going nowhere.

You can't claim that property rights reign supreme and then claim that the property owners of the U.S. (i.e., its citizens) have no right to impose restrictions on visitors who request to enter their property. Seamless borders w/o national sovereignty and the right of citizens to exercise that sovereignty through their duly elected leaders is an element of one-world govt. proponents.

'The citizens of the US' are not the owners of anything
Chris, this statement just about says it all. In your political philisophy you appear to have gone full circle to where the extreme left and extreme right meet - a complete denial of property rights. If this statement is true, we have no right to stop a foreign power from waking onshore and claiming every bit of publically-owned land in the U.S. (and presumedly, since you make no allowance for privately-held land, that also).

Byron Quick

May 24, 2003, 04:02 PM

You can't claim that property rights reign supreme and then claim that the property owners of the U.S. (i.e., its citizens) have no right to impose restrictions on visitors who request to enter their property.

There is a difference between individual property rights and the mass, socialistic property rights you proclaim for the citizenry via the government, rock jock.

I own my property and I have the right to tell you that you may come on my property or alternatively to stay off of my property. I do not have the right to tell you you can only come on my property unarmed without taking full responsibility for your defense against all comers. I'm not willing to take that responsibility.

The "public property" that is owned by the US? The US government shouldn't own property beyond what is necessary for housing the executive, the legislature, the Supreme Court, and military bases. All the rest should be sold to private citizens.

ahenry

May 24, 2003, 05:38 PM

I've also noticed that rock here seems to be the only one standing up for his side of the argument, but he most certainly isn't the only one who voted his way. Anyone else feel like justifying their position, jump right on in.
I am going to jump to his defense, not because I agree with him completely but because I think I understand what he is getting at and he makes some valid points that are getting lost in the screaming. I consider myself to be a constitutionalist, and I believe that under the original construct of our nation this issue would not exist, even assuming there was an illegal immigration issue. The greatest set of limitations was placed upon the federal gov’t for a reason. As well, there is a reason the constitution was not originally intended to confine states. There is absolutely zero reason that a possible need for a law in a border town in Arizona be passed so that it confines someone in Tennessee. If Tennessee has no issue with illegal immigrants purchasing firearms then so be it. If Ajo Arizona has such an issue, then they should be the ones passing the law and in a way that only affects themselves, or if the state constitution forbids it, then perhaps a state-wide law. Now as to whether or not the need for such a law exists, border town or no, I tend to say it does not. But then, I can show you pictures of what illegal immigrants have done with nothing more than rocks, its not pretty. Hell, putting a gun in the hand of an illegal intent on causing damage makes the appropriate decision that much easier to make (albeit a somewhat riskier time in which to make it).

Chris Rhines,
Human rights are not subject to a majority vote, representive democracy, the will of the people, or any other mode of infringement. Human beings have the right to own property, including weapons. Clearly the exercise of certain rights by certain individuals is subject to “the will of the people” as expressed by the appropriate legislative body. Criminals come to mind right off the bat, but there are a myriad of other examples as well. Moreover, what constitutes a “criminal” is up to “majority vote, representative democracy, the will of the people”, etc. A small locality determining that those choosing to live within their jurisdiction must abide by certain restrictions upon the exercise of some rights is not only just it is entirely moral as well. Those that do not with to live with such restrictions are easily able to move to other nearby locations. This is the entire reason the greatest amount of control was placed on the federal gov’t and lesser controls placed on lower levels of gov’t. For example, it is entirely reasonable for a neighborhood association to create rules governing lawn care within that neighborhood (providing residents were the ones making the rules). Living within that neighborhood is voluntary and no rights are taken when one chooses to do so. The exercise of those rights is voluntarily limited by each residents own free will.

ahenry

May 24, 2003, 05:40 PM

C-Yeager,
I notice that you have made a number of posts on this thread. But, this was your first one. I am not sure if you had anything intelligent to say or not. this quote CERTAINLY indicates that you didnt. But, frankly i dont know for sure because i have chosen to disregard everything else that you have said in this thread. And i will continue to disregard everything you have to say from now on. That would be a mistake. It would behoove you to at least read the next one or two posts he made after
the one you got so up in arms about...

Byron Quick,
I do not have the right to tell you you can only come on my property unarmed without taking full responsibility for your defense against all comers. I have to say that I think this is an inane concept. Telling a person you do not wish them to enter your property with a firearm does not somehow magically confer upon you the onus of their protection. That person you said cannot be armed in your house is not being forced by you to enter your property. They enter your property under your rules and take whatever risks might befall them. That said, I personally have no desire to see a visitor to my home unarmed. I just think this idea you have mentioned a couple of times is about the most ridiculous thing I have heard in a long time and deserved comment.

Edward429451

May 24, 2003, 06:58 PM

Abraham Lincoln did not personally like black people. He was big enough to admit the truth that "...All men are created equal..." and to stand for those grand words would mean doing something that went against his preferences and fears so he made the push that freed the slaves. How respectable. It would be hypocritical of gunowners to shout inalienable rights and not sell a foriegner a gun.

If we dont sell foriegners guns, we gotta restrict their access to gasoline and sody pop bottles too...;)

My wife is not yet a citizen and I think she has just as much right to protect herself as anyone else.

Uh, someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't marrying a foreigner give them citizenship and negate the need for any citizenship ceremony? ("Throw your green card away honey, we're married now..."):confused:

Lone_Gunman

May 24, 2003, 07:19 PM

Byron,

Can you cite anything in the law or by precedent that would support the idea that if I am responsible for safety of anyone on my property, if they enter voluntarily and I request they be unarmed?

Are you saying there is some sort of moral obligation, or legal obligation?

Sheslinger

May 24, 2003, 08:13 PM

Art Eatman

May 24, 2003, 08:15 PM

Speaking only for Texas lawyers' opinions: Several have said that a storekeeper who forbids CHL folks to carry on his premises does indeed assume legal responisbility for their safety. His action has taken away their means of self-defense.

Art

May 24, 2003, 08:31 PM

I don't have the information, don't know where to get it...

But I thought the reason Wally World removed the "no CCW signage" was because of an lawsuit, settled out of court when a lady was attacked and since she had left her CCW in vehicle, Wally World was held responsible for her safety from the time she left her vehicle ,to the time she left the parking lot.

Edward429451

May 24, 2003, 08:34 PM

You can apply for citizenship after being a permanent resident alien for 5 years or after being married to a citizen after 3. It does not eliminate the need for citizenship process but simply shortens the waiting period.

Hmmm. Thanks SS. Umm, got a link to further reading on the subject? I'm sitting here thinking how that kind of flies in the face of liberty of the people. Thats no suprise though. My history research indicates that we the people have (at least) all the rights that the King of England had before we left and became independant. Which would certainly include granting citizenship to one who one would wed (and the extended family still overseas, in my mind). Anybody ever hear of two different classes of citizenship?

Don't mean to hijack the thread, PM me if desired. THX.

Byron Quick

May 24, 2003, 08:35 PM

How inane of them, Art!:D

Real simple concept, folks: armed you are capable of defending yourself...unarmed you are not. If I am the cause of you being unarmed then it logically follows that I should assume that responsibility. I refuse to do so. Might be inane from your viewpoint. It's a basic precept of my worldview.

Don't get me wrong, here. It's been many, many years since anyone who I would not trust armed has been in my house or on my property. Those who are in that category, I associate with in public places. But if I tell someone to disarm it will be because I've had legal and moral reason to use lethal force against them, and chose not to do so. It will be with a firearm aimed at their center of mass and pressure on the trigger.

Lone_Gunman

May 24, 2003, 08:48 PM

Byron,

I really think that if something bad happens to someone on your property, they may try to hold you liable, whether they are armed or not.

I am not sure you could convince a jury to hold a property owner responsible in a situation like that. Maybe you could, but I certainly wouldn't think its a sure thing. Most people don't CCW in the first place, so they are not going to understand what the big deal is about being unarmed.

If you could get a jury of THR members, I would say your chances are better.

P95Carry

May 24, 2003, 08:57 PM

If you could get a jury of THR members Now LG .... that is what I call a formula for definite fair judgement.!:)

I wish ...........

ahenry

May 24, 2003, 11:21 PM

People or businesses have been sued for all sorts of inane ideas. Not warning a patron that coffee is hot comes to mind. Just because somebody was able to collect money in court (I’d like to see the supporting evidence that such a thing has happened regarding the issue we are discussing BTW) in no way confers upon the idea the mantel of reasonableness or sensibleness. Now, if you are saying that you wish to avoid the possibility of a lawsuit, no matter how remote or ridiculous it might be, then more power to you. However, attempting to transfer that practical application of modern day tort abuse into a worldview is again, inane.

Art Eatman

May 25, 2003, 12:05 AM

:D ahenry, I don't make the news, I just report it...

Edward429451, I don't see it as unreasonable that there be requirements for citizenship with varying lengths of residency. Once one is a citizen, the rights are all equal--except running for President.

When I was in the Army in the 1950s, the deal was an alien could join up and serve four years and get his citizenship...

ARt

Byron Quick

May 25, 2003, 08:23 AM

However, attempting to transfer that practical application of modern day tort abuse into a worldview is again, inane.

Yes, it would be inane. Unfortunately for the accuracy of your statement...I have not done such nor stated such.

Tort law is not the basis for my worldview. Natural law and morality is.

When I state responsibility I do not mean responsibility under torts.

The only acceptable circumstances to me for disarming someone are the same as the acceptable circumstances for shooting that individual.

Are you saying there is some sort of moral obligation, or legal obligation?

From my viewpoint there is definitely a moral obligation unless a reasonable man would be in fear of their life or grave bodily injury in that situation. And then you have the legal right to use lethal force.

Once again, a human being who cannot be trusted with arms should not be trusted at all. They're too dangerous.

The only circumstances I can think of to voluntarily have someone on my property who cannot be trusted armed is that they are mentally impaired and I have a responsibility to care for them.

Sheslinger

May 25, 2003, 11:31 AM

PM sent from Cslinger's login. For more info, try www.bcis.gov (Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration Services, former INS).

Uh, someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't marrying a foreigner give them citizenship and negate the need for any citizenship ceremony? ("Throw your green card away honey, we're married now...")

Actually, people get married to get a green card, not citizenship. Then you can apply after 3 years.

Sheslinger

Edward429451

May 25, 2003, 11:51 AM

Art I agree generally speaking, but lots of times what starts out as a reasonable idea gets choked up with unreasonable ambiguity and such. Over regulation. That which could affect me on a personal level, I do try to pick holes in in effort to understand where their coming from and what requirements / defenses are in place should they ever try to staple some new or old law to my forhead and say 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', etc.. I married the most wonderful Polish girl 18 yrs ago (1st & only wife) and hold her to be a full citizen in my heart due to me and the pursuit of my happiness of wedding her. I'll be danged if some government minion is going to show up and say anything about anything that has to do with my wife, it'll get reeel nasty real quick. <---Stubborn American pride talk there! Thanks.

CS & SS, Got your PM and thankee much. Much to chew on there, hope I don't wretch from it!:D

Bill St. Clair

May 25, 2003, 12:09 PM

This thread appears to have moved from the original question, but I just found it, so I'll answer that.

My 12-year-old son should be able to walk into the local hardware store, plunk down cash, and walk out with a fully automatic M-16 rifle (or AK-47, or Uzi, or 1911 or Mac-9 pistol, whatever) and as much ammo as he can carry. No identification requested. No paperwork required. If his English is a little rusty because we speak Mexican in my house (which we don't, but hypothetically), no problem, as long as he can communicate well enough to tell the clerk what he wants and pay for his purchase.

Note that absent regulation and taxes, which amount to about a factor of eight in inflation of the price of everything we buy, he'd be able to afford this by saving his allowance for a few months.

A gun is a defensive tool the right to uninfringed possession of which is guaranteed by the second amendment. To all sentient beings. Any legal infringement is high treason.

[fixed a typo]

Triad

May 25, 2003, 12:28 PM

Art, I'll have to disagree with our lawyers. If I require you to disarm I am not responsible for your well being because you chose to disarm yourself. If I force you to disarm I am responsible for your well being because I have removed your choice (or ability) of defending yourself. There was a thread here or at TFL where pax said something to the effect of "You have every right to require me to remove my panties when I am in your home and I have every right to leave and never return." I think that sums it up well.

pax

May 25, 2003, 02:03 PM

Triad,

That's not quite what I said. I do not admit that you have the moral right to disarm me on your property -- only that as a practical matter, you have the practical ability to do so, and that as a simple matter of courtesy I'll leave rather than allow you to do it.

Here's a link to the post I think you were referring to: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&postid=40188#post40188 A little further in that same thread, Shootin' Buddy makes my point with more clarity than I did.

As for the topic of this thread, I don't believe that anyone has the moral right to disarm anyone else -- unless the person being disarmed has actively done something to merit such treatment.

Forget the practical difficulty of the task. The fact is, you don't have the moral right to take Lendringser's guns away, folks.

pax

A personal note to the Founding Fathers: We're sorry. We blew it. You made it possible for us to live free and we blew it. We've given up nearly every personal liberty in the name of a false sense of security sold to the masses by the same type of maniacal government about which you warned us and against which you fought so bravely. We now have to ask permission to take a leak on an airline flight. We never deserved you. – Phil Murphy

Immigration is not a problem to be solved, it is a sign of a confident and successful nation. Their arrival should be greeted not with suspicion and resentment, but with openness and courtesy. -- George W. Bush

BlkHawk73

May 25, 2003, 02:35 PM

In point of fact, the government has no legitimite ownership claim on any property at all, considering the illegitimate means of acquisition. But that's a whole 'nother thread. -Chris Rhines

If so, then you just try skipping your way into Area 51 and have a free-for-all there. After all those gov't official there can't do anything 'cuase their employer doesn't own it, right?

Art Eatman

May 25, 2003, 05:04 PM

What I found interesting about the lawyers' opinions was that in various stores, "No CHL guns!" signs had been posted before the publicity over those opinions. Afterwards, a great many of the signs came down.

Hey, right, wrong or indifferent, I'll take all the help I can get! And for once, some lawyers seemed to be on my side of an issue--which made me wonder if the Millenium had arrived...

:), Art

Safety First

May 25, 2003, 08:14 PM

I voted YES with the Green card option...if you are applying for citizenship and wanting the good ole US of A to become your home, I think you should be allowed to purchase a firearm to defend yourself against the same thugs/murderers the same as the rest of the U.S. citizens do..

Triad

May 26, 2003, 12:09 AM

pax, that was it. I knew I wasn't going to be anywhere near the exact wording, hence the "something to the effect of" bit. :)

Art, I remember that. I thought it was funny how fast some places reversed their policy on firearms when they were faced with liability issues. I'm with you about taking all the help we can get, but it makes me sick to think the lawyers probably voiced those opinions in hopes of money from civil suits the next time some nutjob drove his truck into a cafeteria.:banghead:

Mr. Goodglock

May 26, 2003, 02:40 AM

Kharn

Do you know the meaning of "VISA". It allows alian to be in the US legally without being greencard holder of US citizen. Presently, I have no plan to go to buy gun in the US but I humbly believe that everybody who is subjected to criminal in USA and liable to go to US jail shold have the right to own gun in US for self defence. Record check or registration are OK with me.

shadow 1

May 26, 2003, 07:19 AM

I bought my first two weapons when I was a green card holder, I certainly do not agree with the statements that you shoud be a citizen...The Army sure as heck didn't care that I was a Green Card Holder when I signed up and then served in GW1.

Recon By Fire

May 26, 2003, 07:46 PM

The constitution grants the 2nd amendment right to all citizens. If you don't meet this one and only requirement, forget it.

Sorry, that's just the way it works.

Sheslinger

May 26, 2003, 09:12 PM

See my previous post on this - according to my citizenship test question, "Whose rights does the Contitution protect?", the answer is (according to the INS) - "Citizens' and non-citizens' living in the US".

Bought guns as a green card holder myself.

Sheslinger

HABU

May 26, 2003, 11:56 PM

It's curious to me that lots of people opposed to porus borders with Mexico are all for illegal Mexican's owning guns. Makes me wonder where the line should be drawn.

1) All illegals may pack.

2) Illegals in country for 1 year may pack.

3) Only green card holders may pack.

4) Only citizens may pack.
There are lots of variations in between.

Does the BOR apply to the whole wide world? No, its specific to this country.

c_yeager

May 27, 2003, 02:37 AM

Does the BOR apply to the whole wide world? No, its specific to this country.

The folks who wrote the constitution seem to be in dissagrement with you. They considered them to be god-given rights. Do you think that god just gave them to us?

Byron Quick

May 27, 2003, 09:15 AM

Does the BOR apply to the whole wide world? No, its specific to this country

Please list cites from the framers of the Bill of Rights for this conclusion.

If you don't meet this one and only requirement, forget it.

And exactly where can this one and only requirement be found?

Sheslinger

May 27, 2003, 09:19 AM

About illegal immigrants... seems to be a moot point since they are already breaking the law and could not legally own guns, right?

mussi

May 27, 2003, 10:42 AM

In Switzerland, you need a permanent residency permit ("C" permit) to be able to legally purchase a firearm.

In so far, most folks from the Balkans, Algerians and a few other nationalities are not allowed to possess firearms.

May 27, 2003, 10:43 AM

Some people seem to be having a hard time with the difference between 'this is the way I think it is' or 'this is the way I'd like it to be' and 'this is the way the Constitution is written'. One is your opinion, and one is fact. Please try to make an effort to distinguish the two. This will help to advance the conversation in a productive manner and put an end to the wheel-spinning.

It would also seem that the 'god-given rights' vs. 'piece-of-paper-given rights' distinction is being either misunderstood or simply ignored by several posters. If you are of the 'no gun rights for non-citizens' camp, please address this issue directly instead of ignoring it, as it would seem to be a pivotal point. This will also help to advance the discussion.

Good point, sheslinger.

- Gabe

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 11:49 AM

Please list cites from the framers of the Bill of Rights for this conclusion.
Byron, this is a bit ridiculous. The FF were the founders of the U.S., not Japan or France. What is the preamble of the Constitution?

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Some people seem to be having a hard time with the difference between 'this is the way I think it is' or 'this is the way I'd like it to be' and 'this is the way the Constitution is written'. One is your opinion, and one is fact. Please try to make an effort to distinguish the two. This will help to advance the conversation in a productive manner and put an end to the wheel-spinning.
Agreed. My opinion is that citizens of any country have the right to limit the full exercise of rights of non-citizens until such time that they have achieved full citizenship. ahenry did a good job of clarifying the fact that when a person voluntarily enters a country, they are not being forced or coerced into giving up certain rights. That is strictly my opinion and I think it would be shared by a good number of Americans and folks on this board. I would also note on this poll shows approximately 72% of the respondants want to either totally prohibit or at least place some sort of restriction on immigrants owning firearms. Now, as to what the law actually allows, I am not entirely clear as to what the requirements are for non-citizens purchasing firearms, or what process for obtaining a green card entails.

Speaking only for Texas lawyers' opinions: Several have said that a storekeeper who forbids CHL folks to carry on his premises does indeed assume legal responisbility for their safety. His action has taken away their means of self-defense.
I can tell you that that is not the opinion of the AG in Texas as far as criminal law goes, and although you could seek damages in civil court, you would be hard-pressed to win a case that would not be overturned on appeal.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 11:53 AM

You know, you gotta be a special kind of cheeky to launch tirades about immigration on Oleg Volk's board. ;)

May 27, 2003, 12:04 PM

I would also note on this poll shows approximately 72% of the respondants want to either totally prohibit or at least place some sort of restriction on immigrants owning firearms.The problem with this, rock, is that when you talk about god-given human rights poll numbers do not matter. Again, it would not matter if 99.44% of the US population wanted to deny the right to own firearms to a segment of that popluation. It is a god-given right. It is NOT SUBJECT TO THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. I still can't wait to see how you're planning on disarming Lend. Or how about Oleg? There is an elephant standing in your living room that you are doing an amazing job of ignoring. But he's right there.

:banghead:

You also have not addressed the 'god-given rights' vs. 'piece-of-paper-given rights' issue. The preamble you quoted is making the point that the Constitution is the blueprint for creating a gov't. The gov't being created is the gov't of the United States, not Uganda. The part you cited has nothing to do with the issue here. The issue here is: is the right to self-defense a human right or is it granted by the state. Answer the question.

- Gabe

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 12:08 PM

I did a little reseach to further clarify this issue:

Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

and, from the Legal Information Institute:

The fourteenth Amendment prohibits the states from abridging "the rights and immunities" of any citizen without due process of law. See U.S. Const. amend. XIV. The "due process" clause of the 14th Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as affording citizens protection from interference by the state with almost all of the rights listed in the first eight amendments.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 12:09 PM

Out of curiousity, suppose a person from Lower Slobbovia, a nation that is a friendly trading partner of the US, decides to spend the summer here in America attending a widget-making course at your local VooTee on a student visa.

In addition to not having the right to defend himself for the duration of his stay, what other rights do you feel he doesn't have? Can we keep him from going to the local Orthodox Slobbovian church? What about if he jay-walks, can we hold him indefinitely without charges? Can the cops beat a confession out of him? Can we prevent him from writing letters to the editor? Ooh! I know! We could quarter troops in his home!

After all, the Bill of Rights only applies to American citizens within our borders, right?

I did a little reseach to further clarify this issue:

...and a very little research it was, too. Care to show me a court case where it's been stated that lawful visitors to our nation don't have civil rights?

longeyes

May 27, 2003, 12:20 PM

Disarming Lendringser--what a concept! Sounds like a hit movie to me.

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 12:21 PM

I still can't wait to see how you're planning on disarming Lend. Or how about Oleg?
Gabe, your baiting is so unbeliebably immature. This is the kind of banter one would expect on an elementary school playground. You want an answer? Here it is - I believe citizens have a right to limit the exercise of rights by non-citizens until they achieve full citizenship. The law allows lens to have guns, but I believe that the citizens of this country can limit that right. If that becomes the law of the land, than lens may find that right restricted until he becomes a full citizen. I don't necessarily support that restriction, but I do believe it is within the perogative of the citizens of the U.S. to impose it.

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 12:23 PM

Care to show me a court case where it's been stated that lawful visitors to our nation don't have civil rights?
Care to show me one where visitors enjoy the full and unrestricted right to RKBA, equal to that of citizens?

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 12:25 PM

...and now we're back to the Rights of Man being determined by counting snouts.

If the majority can vote to deny lendringser the basic Human Right to self defense, then they can certainly do the same to rock jock.

Care to show me one where visitors enjoy the full and unrestricted right to RKBA, equal to that of citizens?

Why should that right be different from any other in the BoR? There are numerous court cases upholding a non-citizen's First, Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights; why should the Second be any different? I thought only Democrat Liberal Socialist Sheeple ACLUers treated the Second as somehow "different" from the rest of the BoR?

You haven't answered my question: can we deny visitors the right to speak and worship freely?

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 12:28 PM

If the majority can vote to deny lendringser the basic Human Right to self defense, then they can certainly do the same to rock jock.
No, I'm a citizen. lens came to this country voluntarily. Believe it or not, I'm glad he's here. But, when you are a guest, you don't don't dictate to the host the terms of your stay.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 12:29 PM

Why is the Second different?

I keep asking, you keep not answering. :confused:

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 12:30 PM

You haven't answered my question: can we deny visitors the right to speak and worship freely?
Still posting? I thought you would be busy finding a court case that would refute my "poor research".

longeyes

May 27, 2003, 12:33 PM

It sounds as if some people on this board believe that not only are Constitutional Rights beyond the will of the majority but also beyond the rule of law as established by courts. Even SCOTUS can't abridge an "inalienable" right. Okay. So you think the Framers wanted a nation that ignored sovereignty, citizenship, and the rule of law? What's next, suffrage for all, regardless of status? (Well, here in CA that dream is coming true.)

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 12:52 PM

Well, for starters, your research on the Fourteenth Amendment is interesting in light that the Supremes found in Plyler v. Doe that the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment " 'are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction ...' ". (Italics mine)

The INS itself says that the BoR applies to all persons in the United States, citizen and non-citizen alike.

But still, the burden of proof is on you: You made the positive assertion (ie "The BoR only applies to citizens."), therefore you need to prove that. So far, the evidence seems to be against you.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 12:53 PM

I must have missed where suffrage is mentioned in the BoR. ;)

Sheslinger

May 27, 2003, 12:57 PM

see answer to question 75 from the citizenship test (page 54 of 57)

http://www.bcis.gov/graphics/services/natz/English.pdf

Thanks
Sheslinger

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 01:05 PM

Good thing for some folks that they didn't have to take that test, neh? ;)

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 01:20 PM

OK, sheslinger, here's a a test for you:

you said:
About illegal immigrants... seems to be a moot point since they are already breaking the law and could not legally own guns, right?
Why should the rights of illegal aliens be denied? If RKBA is fundamental, undeniable, not subject ot the will of the majority or laws, how can you deny illegals the right to defend themselves? For that matter, Tamara, how can you deny the rights of incarcerated criminals to own firearms? Would you deny them the right to freely worship? The courts have ruled that felons have the right to exercise their freedom to religion even though they are in prison. In fact, we have gone out of our way to let captured al Queda in Gitmo worship Allah. How can you say that prisoners may enjoy some of their fundamental human rights, but not others?

May 27, 2003, 01:30 PM

The burden of proof here is on you, rock. Don't parry the question away. Address the issues that have been raised.

You're a mature guy, I'm sure you can answer the ladies directly.

Here's another one that has yet to get a direct answer: is the right to self-defense a human right or is it granted by the state. It's a simple question.

And I can do without the insults from here on out, if you think you can handle that.

- Gabe

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 01:30 PM

I asked this question an hour and a half ago, and (despite a half dozen intervening posts) you still haven't answered:

Which other articles of the Bill of Rights do not apply to lawful people within our borders? The First? Fourth? Fifth? Eight?

What answer did you give to Sample Question #75?

May 27, 2003, 01:32 PM

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 02:19 PM

lawful people within our borders
I see that you have qualified application of this "universal" right. So, some groups of people are indeed subject to restrictions of their rights, huh? Funny how you rely on the rule of law to define your exceptions. What other articles of the BoR would you deny them?

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 02:48 PM

And I can do without the insults from here on out, if you think you can handle that.

I didn't start the schoolyard banter, Gabe. And it was not an insult, it was a statement of fact.

May 27, 2003, 04:48 PM

Is the right to self-defense a human right or is it granted by the state?

- Gabe

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 05:09 PM

I see that you have qualified application of this "universal" right.

I qualified that two pages ago, since we were not discussing my opinion, but rather the opinion of the government of this country on who the BoR applies to.

Since you have made yet another post without answering my question, I will accept this as the tendering of your admission of defeat & failure to find facts to support your contention that the BoR does not apply to non-citizens on these shores (when all the facts say it does), and accept your surrender graciously.

Thank you for playing, though. :)

PS: Have you figured out the answer to question #75 on the sample citizenship test yet? If you didn't go look, question #75 was "Q: Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights? A: All people living in the United States." Good thing you didn't have that one on your citizenship application form, huh? ;)

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 05:12 PM

Its a human right. That is not what is being argued. What is being argued is whether that right can be limited in some circumstances. Even within the crowd that disagrees with me on the citizen/non-citizen issue, I see differences of opinion. So I'll ask you, should illegal aliens be allowed to arm themselves for SD?

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 05:17 PM

Another post without answering the original question!

Once again: why do legal aliens have 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and et cetera rights, but no second?

Tick, tock, tick, tock...

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 05:27 PM

I qualified that two pages ago, since we were not discussing my opinion, but rather the opinion of the government of this country on who the BoR applies to.
Wrong. This poll is specifically asking our opinion, which you fail to provide in this case. Why? I think, Tamara, that you realize that you are in a corner on this argument and, when your POV is taken to its logical conclusion, you will be forced to defend an absurdity. If you deny illegal aliens the right to bear arms, you have defined an exception to an otherwise "universal right", you have carved out a group and a single right not subject ot the BoR and you have agreed with my position in principle. What's more is that the basis for this exception would be the rule of law, the very rule of law you and others decry as subject ot the whims of the majority. OTOH, if you allow illegal aliens crossing our border to be armed for their own defense, you make no provision for defending our borders against an invading army, which is one of the most basic purposes of govt. You can't have it both ways, either the right to keep and bear arms is universal and can never be denied, or it can. And IF it can be denied to illegal aliens, then it can be restricted for legal aliens also.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 05:30 PM

You make a statement, I ask a question in response, you can't answer it, and I'm in a corner?

That's pretty funny! :D

Like I said, your capitulation is graciously accepted.

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 05:42 PM

I know what your question is and I am ready to answer it when you first answer mine. I have no unresolvable conflict in my opinion and am therefore perfectly willing to answer, but now that you are faced with the contradiction in your own, you are suddently playing dodge-ball. i am really enjoying this, especially after the way I have been self-righteously judged on this board for my position.

Battler

May 27, 2003, 05:45 PM

Wrt. the illegal aliens with guns vs. invading army.

Consider the 2nd amendment "collective" rights vs. "individual" rights argument.

Perhaps there is an "individual" right to own a gun for yourself; but not a "collective" right to own one as part of a collective invading army :)

:neener:

Serious, though - while one could claim that the gov has no authority to control guns, perhaps they do to detain people at the border, and to act against folk who attack Federal employees? This could be seen as a constitutional means against, not an invading army owning weapons in the US; but of getting here. (Conspiracy charges as well).

Whether one is for or against them exercising this power being another matter, this is a method by which they COULD repel an army, inside of anyone's definition of constitutional.

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 06:06 PM

Battler,

The point I am trying to make is that if you make no provision for restricting the RKBA of some groups, you end up with absurd hypothetical situations like this. So maybe the invading army doesn't march in ranks and wear uniforms. Maybe they come across in groups of 10 or 20. Maybe they wear bluejeans and Reeboks, much in the way of our own SF dressing as locals in Afghanistan. But if illegal aliens, whose only provable crime is walking across an unseen line in the ground or a river bottom, can be disarmed for our protection, then why cannot legal aliens be also. Because one group has been issued a simple piece of paper by the state? If so, then you must acknowledge that the rule of law is the line of demarcation between those that can enjoy this right and those that cannot, a rule of law that is subject to the state, and by inference, the people, the citizens of the U.S. OTOH, if illegals may not be disarmed, then you deny the right of the citizenry of the U.S. to protect itself.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 06:09 PM

rock jock sez:

I know what your question is and I am ready to answer it when you first answer mine.

rock jock also sez:

This is the kind of banter one would expect on an elementary school playground.

To continue in the theme:

I asked you first.

Simply put, either:

A) All rights in the BoR apply to lawful folk living on these shores.
B) No rights in the BoR apply to lawful folk living on these shores.
C) Some rights in the BoR apply to lawful folk living on these shores.

Can you answer it as a multiple choice? :confused:

rock jock

May 27, 2003, 06:14 PM

OK, Tamara. The answer is C. The rights of non-citizens may be subject to reasonable restrictions based on a compelling state interest. That is my opinion.

Now, i have answered your question, I expect the same courtesy from you.

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 06:22 PM

Ah, okay!

So, if we all vote, then the police may beat confessions out of non-citizens? Or perhaps execute them on the street? Or quarter troops within their homes?

My response:

If the person in question (citizen or non-citizen) is not currently under sentence for a crime, then their rights (as enumerated in the BoR) are intact. I don't care whether they are a citizen, a green card holder, a student visa-holder, or on vacation. I think anyone on these fair shores who is not a criminal is protected by the BoR, and thankfully the law agrees with me.

If you can deprive visitors of Second Amendment rights by counting snouts, then you can deprive visitors of Eighth Amendment rights by counting snouts. Either lawful folks here have rights, or they don't.

P95Carry

May 27, 2003, 06:29 PM

Keyword = lawful. ..... all hinges round that (and if necessary, definition thereof).

Sheslinger

May 27, 2003, 06:46 PM

I don't see a problem here. There are two sides of this, moral and legal. If you are an illegal immigrant, you are breaking the law, so, first, you do not have a legal right to own a gun in the US (you still have the moral right to), and, second, you don't exist here so how would you even go buy a gun, assuming you go through an FFL?

If you are not a felon and you live here, you can own a gun, morally and legally.

Bottom line is, like Tamara said, as long you have not committed a crime (been convicted, to be exact), your rights are the same as of a US citizen (you can't vote, that's about it).

Just my two cents worth (I think I am up to a quarter on this thread).

Tamara, glad you found the test amusing. Most of it is common knowledge but I bet you very few people would get 100%.

Sheslinger

jimbo

May 27, 2003, 10:01 PM

I said "yes". Self-defense is a basic human right. Why make prey out of those who are not US citizens here.

Prohibition never works. Criminals don't get their guns from Al's Gun Emporium. Why do you think terrorists would need to do so. How hard would it be for the Saudi Royals to have one of their fine US citizen's over here buy a nice big fat gun store with Saudi Royal Money and sell them "legally" to terrorist non-citizens who show fake ID's as being US citizens. I mean, that is easy enough.

Dr.Who

May 27, 2003, 10:23 PM

NO, unless "greencard" holder,
Being a citizen of this country would give you a right to own in this country.

I'm supprised the government dosen't pick up on this, you can't buy unless your taxes are filed. Non-Citizens aren't paying their fare share but want the perks? This refers to Illegals!

Just like being an American should make us color blind to our fellow Americans. We all make the country great! We the people...

Now if we can all learn one language, one tongue... Just like the message that my Hispanic California friend's answering machine... "...and for my Spanish speaking friends, YOUR IN AMERICA, SPEAK THE ENGLISH at the sound of the tone!".

:scrutiny:

Sheslinger

May 27, 2003, 10:42 PM

Permanent resident aliens (green card holders) pay taxes just like citizens because the main right of a green card holder is a right to work in the US. I probably paid more taxes in 8.5 years than an average citizen on welfare will pay in his/her whole life.

Amazes me how many people do not know the difference between legal and illegal immigration and what being a green card holder entails.

Sheslinger

P95Carry

May 27, 2003, 10:52 PM

Agreed Sheslinger .... if there's one thing we have to do ----- it's ''pay our way''.

Dr.Who

May 27, 2003, 10:53 PM

Sheslinger,
The majority of the people are citizen's that don't deal with the concept on a daily bases. That is why we have those that do. The question was an opinion, a poll, I voice mind as did allot in this posting. Right or wrong, it is a right that Americans have...

Don't Shoot... But Non-Citizen's was meant as illegals...

:D

hops

May 27, 2003, 10:53 PM

What? Non-citizens do not pay taxes? Damm, I paid income taxes, property taxes, sales taxes fees and so on, and I did not have to, for 20+ years because I was an ALIEN (legal) - not a Citizen?

Where to I file for a refund????? I could get my MG42, MP44, MP40, Thompson, M16A2 with that refund and then some.

Sorry, most Aliens, be they legal or not pay TAXES. I had to register for Selctive Service just like my American Citizen friends did at age 18. In fact, the U.S. citizenship application form asks for this info and citizenship can be denied if you did not register at 18 after 1980.

YES, Aliens, be they here on a visit or on a more permanent visa, should have the right to a firearm.

Aliens can't (legally) vote, work for the Feds, be a commissioned officer, get a sec clearance (for the most part - there are exceptions) and some other stuff.

Sheslinger

May 27, 2003, 10:57 PM

Sorry, I am afraid I'm going to have to go Russian on you...

;)

hops, I am right there with you. I want my money back!!!

Sheslinger

Dr.Who

May 27, 2003, 11:10 PM

Anti this fun,

We can discuss this in this fashion...

I'm sorry but when I said non-citizen it lumpped it in with illegal. Sorry for the confusion. Yes illegals will pay sales tax when they buy stuff, everyone does. But I would find it hard to believe that they would file a 1040 form, legaly. Wouldn't that be like raising their hand with a red flag? Or paying Russian roulette with 6 rounds in a 6 round revolver?

Enjoy...:o

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 11:34 PM

Now if me[sic] can all learn one language, one tongue... Just like the message that my Hyspanic[sic]...

Sometimes the jokes just write themselves.

Try the veal; I'll be here all week. ;)

:D

Tamara

May 27, 2003, 11:43 PM

Hey, maybe rock jock could go show how the right to self defense is subject to the "greater good" here (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24252). That board needs some good people arguing his viewpoint! :uhoh:

hops

May 27, 2003, 11:50 PM

Hi Dr. Who.

At least you're willing to allow legal aliens to own guns. You're on the right path. :)

On the U.S. citizenship application they ask if you ever did not file Federal Income Confiscation form 1040.

An alien's wrap sheet is expected to be cleaner than the average American's.

I'm suprised that 60 voted NO, even if legal alien.

Do you 60 realized that Green Card holders have the same basic obligations that U.S. Citizens have?

Green card holders are legally required to serve in the U.S. armed forces if called upon! Green card holders have to obey all U.S. laws, pay taxes just like U.S. citizens even if they are outside of the U.S. (subject in part to tax treaties with countires were applicable).

While I can understand, although I disagree with this view, that some people are against illegal aliens owing firearms, I find it impossible to make the same sort of passionate argument in not allowing legal aliens the right to own firearms. Legal Aliens will in most instances become U.S. citizens. If legal aliens are expected to serve and defend the U.S. constitution, they are entitled to receive all benefits and protections of that constitution.

Dr.Who

May 27, 2003, 11:56 PM

Tamara,
Thanks for point'n out the errors, they were corrected. Sure glad I don't earn a living writting or typing...

:D

Dr.Who

May 28, 2003, 12:07 AM

Hops,
There are some valid reasons why those 60 voted the way they did. It was their opinion based on their experiences. They may have been in one of the wars, or had a family run in with an illegal alien problem/situation...

It is my understanding, that the only major difference between a Citizen and a "greencard" holder is the right to vote. Isn't a greencard considered a pledge that the holder will live under and apply the law of the land while they are in the US. If they don't they are subject to that law and or out they go?

:rolleyes:

JackM

May 28, 2003, 01:09 AM

The question certainly didn't say anything about people illegally in the country, just non-citizens. In my case, I'm a legal visitor when ever I'm south of the border. Seems that traditional American isolationism is changing to paranoia. Sealing the border off is killing towns like Havre, Montana. I used to shop at Norman's, Big R and the gun shop in the back of Stromberg's Sinclair, but it's not worth the hassle now. Maybe rock jock doesn't like the color of my money, but no one in Havre ever complained.

Bye
Jack

longeyes

May 28, 2003, 01:37 AM

"Seems that traditional American isolationism is changing to paranoia."

Traditonal American isolationism? Are you trying for the Mike Meyers Canadian Refugee Comedy Prize? Why don't you compare your standards in Canada for accepting immigrants to ours down here? We don't do a tally of your financial assets first.

Every country, if it has its wits about it, has the right to make sure that those who live within its borders agree to the fundamental predicates that form the foundation of its vital core. Perhaps we should interrogate all the illegals who come here "just wanting to make a living" and see how many understand or believe in our Constitution and Bill of Rights? Or is that too "uncompassionate?"

There's more to America, a lot more, than the color of money, yours or anyone else's, JackM.

Sheslinger

May 28, 2003, 11:41 AM

Dr.Who

Hops,
There are some valid reasons why those 60 voted the way they did. It was their opinion based on their experiences. They may have been in one of the wars, or had a family run in with an illegal alien problem/situation...

It is my understanding, that the only major difference between a Citizen and a "greencard" holder is the right to vote. Isn't a greencard considered a pledge that the holder will live under and apply the law of the land while they are in the US. If they don't they are subject to that law and or out they go?

You are correct about the differences between a citizen and a green card holder. You also cannot apply for federal jobs, and some other things along the same lines.

I still do not understand why so many people have problems with legal immigrants and deny them the rights but expecting them to stick to the responsibilities of a citizen.

Sheslinger

Erik

May 28, 2003, 12:10 PM

It is simply not true that everyone in the US has the same rights, privleges, and due process as everyone else. For example:

A citizen born in the US may run for President.

A citizen born outside the US may not.

Nationals may not.

And those are deemed Americans, folks.

Immigrants and non-immigrants DO NOT share the entitlements Americans take for granted. Share some of them? Yes. But not all of them. (It is rather complicated, surprise, surprise, given that congress makes the rules.)

Tamara

May 28, 2003, 12:45 PM

Yes, but they do share the protections of the Bill of Rights (of which "running for President" isn't one).

I thought the whole RKBA movement was about trying to remind everyone that the Second Amendment is just as important as the other nine?

rock jock

May 28, 2003, 01:49 PM

Hey, maybe rock jock could go show how the right to self defense is subject to the "greater good" here. That board needs some good people arguing his viewpoint!
You still don't understand the issue as I presented it. It is not an issue of self-defense, it is rather one of ownership, of property rights, expanded to a much larger scale.

who is not a criminal
I noticed that you still conveniently adhere to the rule of law as the line of demarcation between who should and should not have access to firearms. Interesting that in the past you have remarked that the surest way to achieve gun control is to make every gun owner a criminal. Now, the very system you condemn is the one you use to justify your position. Furthermore, you never answered my question - what other rights in addition to the 2A would deny the poor illegal who crosses the border for a better life here? Would you deny him/her the right to worship freely, to voice their opinion? Would you grant the govt. the right to destroy their home, their possessions?

Battler

May 28, 2003, 01:51 PM

Rock Jock: Not coming down hard on you (this conversation is good). But. . . .

Your house, assuming you have one, or if you had one:

Does it belong to you, or to the American People?

Don't mean to interrupt the running conversation; but answering this may clarify things.

Keep up the good work!

Cheers,
Battler.

rock jock

May 28, 2003, 02:11 PM

My house belongs to me. The country belongs to the American people.

Tamara

May 28, 2003, 05:05 PM

My house belongs to me. The country belongs to the American people.

But your house is in this country, therefore subject to the will of the collective, right? Is part of my property also owned by you, since we're both Americans? Can you tell me what I should allow other folks to do here? Did you research in the Constitution to see what land the Federal Government (which is what I assume you mean by "we") actually is allowed to own?

Furthermore, you never answered my question - what other rights in addition to the 2A would deny the poor illegal who crosses the border for a better life here? Would you deny him/her the right to worship freely, to voice their opinion? Would you grant the govt. the right to destroy their home, their possessions?

Furthermore, you're clouding the issue again: the INS says the Bill Of Rights applies to everyone in this country. I agree with them; I wish they agreed with themselves. (Just like the ACLU and the Berkely City government, apparently the Feds have forgotten that the Second Amendment is part of the BoR...)

Personally, I think that all it should take to be an American citizen is to live here and obey civil law, kind of like John Paul Jones did. If Yoshi or Achmed or Pierre is here on vacation and says to himself "Screw going home, I'm all about this freedom stuff; I'm buying a house here. I'm an American!", then he's an American in my book.

Live here peacably, don't steal stuff (including tax dollars), don't harm other folks, and you're welcome, as far as I'm concerned. On the other hand, if you think society owes you something just for who you are, or want to tell other folks what to do, there are other countries that would probably be more accommodating to you.

Erik

May 28, 2003, 06:16 PM

"Yes, but they do share the protections of the Bill of Rights (of which "running for President" isn't one)."

OK, but the Fourth Amendment is:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Immigrants in the US enjoy fewer of the protections enumerated above than do citizens. Non-immigrants, virtually none. (When dealing with matters of immigration law. An Immigration Officer has the authority to conduct warrantless arrests and searches of immigrants and non-immigrants. They may even, in some instances were they need a warrant, write their own. Oh, and in certain instances they serve as the defacto judge as well.)

Individuals in the process of entering the US, citizen or not, no matter how far physically into the US, lose many of the protections enumrated above. Citizens retain most. The rest have virtually none. (When dealing with immigration and custom matters at borders and defacto borders. Yes, you must present evidence of who you are. Yes, you can be detained and arrested without a warrant. Yes, personal effects are subject to search and seizure sans warrant at times.)

But what about due process of law, someone in the back asks? Due process is whatever Congress says it is. Needless to say, Congress says that due process varies with the category of individual, i.e. citizen, national, immigrant, and non-immigrant.

"I thought the whole RKBA movement was about trying to remind everyone that the Second Amendment is just as important as the other nine?"

It certainly is, and that is certainly the case. However, not everyone involved on "our side" of the fence is an absolutionist. I believe in case by case exceptions to Rights in the name of the greater good. I also believe that there should be darn few of them, and that motions to obtain them should be as difficult as possible so to nip political wrangling with them as much as possible.

Erik