2nd Amendment and Aliens (earthbound type)

[diesel556]

Stating that a non-citizen should not enjoy all the rights of a citizen is not racist.

Let me fix it for you:

"Stating that an non-citizen should not enjoy all the rights of the people is not classist"

Come again? Doesn't make as much sense when you word it properly, does it?

Oh, and he said racist/classist/sexist. Not racist/racist/racist. Gun control for any type of alien, is by its very nature classist.

So a felon not being allowed to own a firearm is racist? A state not allowing someone to carry in a post office is racist? Requiring someone to register a hand gun is racist?

I find it very enlightening that you defend additional unconstitutional infringements of the second amendment. And by the way, felons are a class.

[DefensiveCarry.com]

[Thanis]

...Oh, and he said racist/classist/sexist. Not racist/racist/racist...

Semantics, as his core argument was that it is based on a prejudice. Just because you use the word "class" or can define something to be a "class" does not make it classist. Properly defined words do not equate racist/classist/sexist. Just because people call someone a woman does not make them a sexist. The only thing you prove is that we use language. Stating someone is a non-citizen does not prove prejudice and/or discrimination on the basis of socioeconomic class. It is a matter of legality. Just like the difference between right and privlage.

So to state a right of a citizen should not be guaranteed a non-citizen is not based on any of the ist or isms beyond recognation of the different legal statuses.

I remember a senator (I think MI) a few years back stated the word "illegal alien" should not be used because it made her think of space creatures.

So tired of people stating something is "like" something. Intent matters as much as wording, in addition the specific defination being used of the word matters.

[bandit383]

"Stating that an non-citizen should not enjoy all the rights of the people is not classist"

Come again? Doesn't make as much sense when you word it properly, does it?.

So?? Aliens (non-citizen) are a class...so, what is your point? Should all classes have the same rights...not in my book.

Rick

[TheHun]

So?? Aliens (non-citizen) are a class...so, what is your point? Should all classes have the same rights...not in my book.

Rick

I bet you appreciate them in the service.
I bet you appreciate your Allies as well who's citizens die in your war all the times.
After all they are just a "class."

Yes feel free to have your opinion, but the laws are written by educated people for a reason...

[bandit383]

I bet you appreciate them in the service.
I bet you appreciate your Allies as well who's citizens die in your war all the times.
After all they are just a "class."

Yes feel free to have your opinion, but the laws are written by educated people for a reason...

Hummmm..."in your war"...my comments, I'm afraid, would be derogatory.

You don't like "class"...but it is what it is...whether you like it or not. Curious...can someone tell me if a non-citizen serving in the Armed Forces can get a security clearance...say TS?

That being said...state the "reason".

Rick

[Al Lowe]

Gun control, ORIGINALLY, was based on prejudice. And to a degree, it still is. Take Chicago for instance. The only people who can carry guns legally are law enforcement, and Chicago City Aldermen.

In New York City, it's law enforcement, and those people well connected enough to have an NYC carry permit.

As far as felons having guns, isn't there a law against that? But if you're a law breaker, what would you care? You'd carry anyway. That is why pistol free zones make no sense. The only people who obey those laws are the law-abiding. Gun Control laws only affect the law-abiding people. That's the supreme prejudice in my opinion.

[Al Lowe]

Same statement made to justify every extreeme firearm ownership demand. Using the meaning of words, as often missed, the right should not be infringed. So, a reasonable restriction would not encroach upon 2A in a way that violates law or make obsolete 2A.

The problem with "reasonable restrictions" is one man's reason, is another man's insanity. What's reasonable to you, is not reasonable to me. And so on.

Who's reasonableness do we use?

And FYI, "reasonable restrictions" is the sort of language we hear from the Brady Bunch.

Me, I want to park a tank in my back yard.

[SelfDefense]

As far as felons having guns, isn't there a law against that? But if you're a law breaker, what would you care? You'd carry anyway.

Just curious, but if there wasn't a law how would you identify a law breaker?

Anarchy is irresponsibility.

[SelfDefense]

The problem with "reasonable restrictions" is one man's reason, is another man's insanity. What's reasonable to you, is not reasonable to me. And so on.

Who's reasonableness do we use?

We use the reason determined by our society, not a single person who defines liberty any way he wants.

Anarchy is irresponsibility.

[HotGuns]

Anarchy is irresponsibility.

You said that twice...or is that your new signature?

[SelfDefense]

You said that twice...or is that your new signature?

No, not a signature. Just a statement.

I think it is misguided to believe all gun laws, or any laws for that matter, are an infringement of 'rights.'

Perhaps Madoff's rights were infringed when he was arrested for simply taking advantage of 'suckers.' Why is there a law against Ponzi schemes? Madoff doesn't obey the law so why have a law at all?

[HotGuns]

I tend to think of ANY law as an infringement of rights.
In fact, LAWS pretty much suck.

Now, that I've said that, a law is a limitation of freedom. Most of the laws that have been enacted that actually deal with freedom in one way or another came about because a minority of people somewhere at sometime screwed up and now the 99.9 percent that didn't screw up are limited as to what they can do.

Before anyone goes jumping off and getting spastic on me, let me say that I fully understand and accept the fact that we need some law because that is the only way that we can thrive or even survive living so closely together.

But what about gun law? Really, what good are they? They really serve no purpose other than to transfer power to someone else. For most of the history of this country, there were very few gun laws and the system worked very well. It wasn't ANARCHY at all, fact of the matter is, there were less problems then than there are today. Society really was a kinder,gentler place because for the most part everyone respected each other.

Nothing at all like today, where looking at the wrong person at the wrong time or simply making eye contact can get you killed.

As already mentioned, laws only affect those that are willing to abide by them. Those that don't, prey on those that do. And those that do, choose to let lesser men dictate the conditions of their survival, and there is nothing at all right about that. A sample might be New York City, or Chicago, where only the cops or gangsters have guns, or maybe a few millionaire's that bought the privilege.

The honest law abiding people are caught in the crossfire. The politicians whine and moan like crying babies at the mere thought of giving up a tiny bit of control
therefore something as simple as the right to defend one self from aggression will find someone in each city more vigorously prosecuted than the perpetrator of the crime. It ain't right. Never has been, never will be and there is simply no way to justify it.

[Thanis]

Most of the time, a just and reasonable law, even related to gun control, is a good law. As it pretains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates of makes 2A obsolete.

The history of law is closely connected to the development of civilization. According to Merriam Webster law is “a binding custom or practice of a community: a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority. Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual." Without laws, you would not know what side of the road to drive on.

...As already mentioned, laws only affect those that are willing to abide by them. Those that don't, prey on those that do...

It is the absolute nature of the statement that always draws me in. " ...laws only affect those that are willing to abide by them." You need to get better LE. In my part of the world, the overwhelming majority of the time, laws directly affects and punishs those unwilling to abide by them. The vast majority of our society alters their behavior because what is and is not legal.

As to what any of this has to do with non-citizens and if 2A applies at all, as a privlage, or a right, I'm lost.

Gun control, ORIGINALLY, was based on prejudice. And to a degree, it still is...

Al, I'll take you word for it for now, but just want to state, just because I think a non-citizen should not be granted 2A as a right, I'm not being prejudice. I'm not making a prejudgment before becoming aware of the relevant facts. As a matter of legality (the same legality that justifies the difference between citizen and non-citizen), I believe the right to bear arms should be a privlage for non-citizens.

[HotGuns]

You need to get better LE

What good would better LE do Thanis?

They aren't there to protect you and they wont be there when you need them.

The vast majority of our society alters their behavior because what is and is not legal.

Disagree. Law has nothing to do with it. Most people have enough moral scruples about them to still know what its right and what is wrong and that is what they act upon.

Laws do not prevent anyone from doing what they want to do. The law is there only to provide a means of punishment if they screw up. Not one time have I heard a murderer say that the law prevented him from killing someone. What the law did do was put him jail for the rest of his life or provide for his execution, but it was only after the fact...which was a moot point for the victim or their family.

Most of the time, a just and reasonable law, even related to gun control, is a good law

Baloney.
Show me proof of one good gun law.

As it pretains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates of makes 2A obsolete.

It is apparent that you do not understand what an "infringement" is. You know, the 2ndA which states that "shall not be an infringed". Go look it up.

A law any law, that restricts your ability to carry or bear arms is an infringement.

[Thanis]

...Laws do not prevent anyone from doing what they want to do...

There is that absolute statement again.

In my part of the world it is illegal to burn leaves. The majority of my neighborhood complaines about this every fall. Not one of us burns leaves, just because it is illegal.

Many times have I wanted drink a beer. However, I was CC. Because of CC law I did not drink.

Your wrong. Laws do have a preventative nature.

...Show me proof of one good gun law...

I can't do this, for you. However I do believe in reasonable gun control, like permits, or providing ID to prove you are over 18, that I don't feel infringe on 2A.

...It is apparent that you do not understand what an "infringement" is. You know, the 2ndA which states that "shall not be an infringed". Go look it up....

Infringement: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, to make obsolete.

So I'll restate,

As it pretains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates of makes 2A obsolete.

...A law any law, that restricts your ability to carry or bear arms is an infringement.

Well, the laws of the Republic, and the highest court disagree with you, but you have the right to your opinion (and it is good to hear them). God knows, I can think of one decision off of the top of my head that the courts have upheld that I don't agree with. I'm happy about District of Columbia v. Heller.