2nd Amendment and Aliens (earthbound type) - Page 9

2nd Amendment and Aliens (earthbound type)

This is a discussion on 2nd Amendment and Aliens (earthbound type) within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; I'm happy about District of Columbia v. Heller. I am not. It wasnt absolute enough. It is still debatable....

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 144

Thread: 2nd Amendment and Aliens (earthbound type)

  1. #121
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,133
    I'm happy about District of Columbia v. Heller.
    I am not. It wasnt absolute enough. It is still debatable.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/


  2. #122
    Senior Member Array Al Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Mason, MI, USA
    Posts
    574
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I am not. It wasnt absolute enough. It is still debatable.
    I could not agree more.

  3. #123
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    I am not. It wasnt absolute enough. It is still debatable.
    Quote Originally Posted by Al Lowe View Post
    I could not agree more.
    It is because neither of you understands that 2A is not an absolute right. Just like every other (Constitutional) right spoken of, granted, guaranteeded, acknowledged, or whatever word you want to use to fulfill your desire to change the cognitive narrative of the subject.

    There is a reason why the history of law is closely connected to the development of civilization. Why Aristotle declared, "The rule of law is better than the rule of any individual." No individual right is absolute unless the desired result is tyranny or anarchy.

    Therefore:

    #1 Using the english language and logic, as it pertains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates or makes 2A obsolete. This is not a statement of opinion, but of fact.

    #2 If one can acknowledge the difference between citizen and non-citizen, one can also make the (non-prejudiced) case for the difference (legally) between the right of a citizen in his own country and the non-citizen's privlage version of that right.

    #3 In addition, it can be easily argued, this distinction does not erode away the citizen's right, it strengthens it.

  4. #124
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,101
    Thanis--- While I understand where you are coming from (I think), I do not believe the BOR applies only to citizens. If you go through the document, and the entire Constitution, it seldom uses the words citizen or citizens; usually person or persons. Everyone present here has the same BOR rights. That is why an alien here can write a letter to a newspaper without fear of retribution; that is why an alien here has a right to remain silent; that is why an alien here has protection from unreasonable searches to the same extent as a citizen.

    IT is clear that the founders knew the distinction between a citizen and a non-citizen because they refer to naturalization in our Constitution. So, therefore, it wasn't likely mere chance that in other portions of the document they chose to use a more general form of referral to the humans who inhabited the USA at the time. They even deliberately defined the slaves as less than a full human--- so they were well aware of the fine meanings of these various terms.

    Therefore, I do not agree with your view that 2A should apply only to citizens. That said, I see no problem with denying that to tourists and other temporary visitors and workers, though I am not convinced it is lawful to do that.

    The framers were well aware that there were people present who were not citizens, yet they chose to say "the right of the people" instead of "the right of citizens" and I don't think that was an accident.

  5. #125
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    ...The framers were well aware that there were people present who were not citizens, yet they chose to say "the right of the people" instead of "the right of citizens" and I don't think that was an accident.
    Semantics. The definition used for the public, the people, citizens, are clearly the same in the Constitution, Bill of Rights, etc. "We the People of the United States..." It is not defined in exact legal ease. The intent is clear. Per the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, "...and as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government..." The framers were making a social contract between a government of the people to the people (citizens) of a sovereign nation.

    The Constitution and Bill of Rights only speak to rights of citizen. It does not address directly the rights of non-citizens as it applies to several rights. The rights of non-citizens might be indirectly related to rights defined in those documents (or required by international-law).

    For example, Omnibus Appropriations Act (1999) amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the transfer to and possession of firearms by aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. Their is a valid difference between non-citizen and citizen and the rights granted. The legal right for a non-citizen to bear arms is not granted under 2A.

  6. #126
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,133
    It is because neither of you understands that 2A is not an absolute right.
    Using the english language and logic, as it pertains to 2A, a reasonable regulation should not encroach upon in a way that violates or makes 2A obsolete. This is not a statement of opinion, but of fact.
    A regulation IS an encroachment.

    A back ground check saying that I can defend my self with a gun is an encroachment. How can it not be? If I dont get it I dont get to tote a gun.

    A fee that makes me pay for my "right" is an encroachment. If I dont pay the144.25 fee, I don't get to defend myself with a concealed weapon.

    Me having to provide fingerprints to prove I am innocent is an encroachment. If I dont not, I am presumed guilty until I am proved innocent.

    Thanis, your northern version of the English language is alot different than mine.

    And really, why is a man from another country less able to defend himself than we that live here? Does he love his family any less? Why should any man be hindered by some useless regulation that makes his life worth less than mine?
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  7. #127
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    A regulation IS an encroachment.?
    Because resonable regulations don't advance beyond proper limits. I don't intend to change your mind, you are defining an individual right to an undefendable extreem (often with the same breath a statement of some domino or eroding effect).

    A democracy / republic must come to terms with what is reasonable, as the framers clearly intended. I'm not implying any greater reasonable limitation on 2A as I might freedom of speech.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ..I am presumed guilty until I am proved innocent...
    I agree. However, innocent until proved guilty, is not based on 2A. The best counter argument is a public safety argument and the balance between. You can be taken into custody even though you have not been shown to have commited a crime.

    However, you are right. This is a point not made enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...Thanis, your northern version of the English language is alot different than mine...
    Has nothing to do with it. You are not acknowledging the meaning of the words. As I stated, you are just fulfilling your desire to change the cognitive narrative of the subject. It is valid to argue that a regulatuion is not reasonable, but to disagree with a factual statement is fruitless.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...And really, why is a man from another country less able to defend himself than we that live here?...
    Because I think providing foreign nationals the "legal" right to bear arms imposes on national sovernity.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...Does he love his family any less?...
    I don't know.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...Why should any man be hindered by some useless regulation that makes his life worth less than mine?
    Because,

    It does not makes his life worth less than yours.

    There are many hypotheticals where I would not want a non-citizen (regardless of legal status) to be allowed to enter or resided in the U.S. with a firearm. Thus the willingness to consider it a privlage and not a right, given the legal implications.

    Further, per the OP, I think it is clear, the Constitution and Bill of Rights, does not provide the rights of citizenry to non-citizens. This does not mean I think non-citizens have no rights, but it is reasonable to assert there is a difference.

  8. #128
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    15,133
    And really, why is a man from another country less able to defend himself than we that live here?...
    That ain't a "no" question.
    It's one that requires a much broader answer of why their life is of less value than mine. It must be because they are not allowed to defend it here right?

    Why would we deny a man something that the Creator gave him unless we considered them to be inferior to us? Whats right about that?

    Also, you have to remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution that everyone were technically British citizens until the Declaration of Independence. They were considered British citizens rebelling against the Crown of England and it was a rebellion that had to be crushed, but it didn't work that way. At that time many people were immigrants from all over.

    Every man at that time was allowed to bear arms, citizenship or origin of birth mattered not. There were very few if any gun laws. It worked then, why not now?

    Gun laws were almost non-existent in the first century of this country.
    I really don't see them of being much benefit in this century...except to politicians that fear an armed population. I've said it before and I will say it again, Gun Control isn't really about guns...its about controlling people.

    Thats all its ever been about and that all it will ever be about.
    Therefore they only serve one purpose...
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/

  9. #129
    Member Array TheHun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    area 1
    Posts
    141
    Thanis

    You don't want them (legal aliens) to be able to defend themselves...cause you just hate them.

    Assume your parents came here a few years ago still green card holders legal aliens but not citizens...but you are lucky and born here... would you be preaching the same lines? You telling me you don't want your father to be able to defend you and your mother from violent criminal attacks?
    Don't even start with that there are other ways one can defend himself.

    You twisting the lines of the 2A as you would like to read it...but is is written as it is written.

    Next time you gonna jump on minority people? How about fat people should not be allowed to own guns...as they already proved that they lacking self-control.

    I can feel the hate when you are talking my friend.

    Regards,


    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~
    QKShooter Note:
    This post is a borderline forum rule violation. Since it has already been responded to I'll let it stay but, watch it!
    We have our rule of law here also. Be respectful and polite or move on.

    2. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts or PMs. Trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are strictly prohibited.
    You are welcome to disagree with opinions other than your own, but flaming other members will not be allowed.
    If you can't figure out how to compose a post without it being confrontational or a personal attack on someone, simply bite your lip
    and don't post it.
    If you do not like our rules or feel you cannot follow them, seek out a new venue to frequent, or start your own.
    I carry a gun cause I can't carry a cop.

  10. #130
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    That ain't a "no" question.
    It's one that requires a much broader answer of why their life is of less value than mine. It must be because they are not allowed to defend it here right?...
    Your right. I addressed this after you quote.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...Why would we deny a man something that the Creator gave him unless we considered them to be inferior to us? Whats right about that?...
    Because I believe just nation has the right to defend its sovernity.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...Also, you have to remember that at the time of the writing of the Constitution that everyone were technically British citizens until the Declaration of Independence. They were considered British citizens rebelling against the Crown of England and it was a rebellion that had to be crushed, but it didn't work that way...
    One of the reasons the Declaration of Independence is written before the Constitution. They were not British citizens, at least according to themselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ...At that time many people were immigrants from all over...Every man at that time was allowed to bear arms, citizenship or origin of birth mattered not. There were very few if any gun laws. It worked then, why not now?...
    People who refused to acknowledge their citizenship were not not granted the same rights. I'm not going to get into yet another opinion based hypothetical on history. There are vast differences if firearms and society since 1700s.

    Want to restate I'll grant you:

    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    ..I am presumed guilty until I am proved innocent...
    However, innocent until proved guilty, is not based on 2A and does not need to apply to non-citizens when it comes to the right to bear arms.

  11. #131
    VIP Member Array Thanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MI
    Posts
    2,362
    Quote Originally Posted by TheHun View Post
    ...You don't want them (legal aliens) to be able to defend themselves...cause you just hate them...I can feel the hate when you are talking my friend...
    You need to train those Jedi skills better, or better practice whatever mystic abilities you have. You are very off on my "hate." I'm very pro-immigration.

    Just because I reserve the right to bear arms as a right of a citizen and a privlage to non-citizens does not demonstrate a flaw in my character.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHun View Post
    ...would you be preaching the same lines?...
    I hope so. It is logical that a nation would not provid foreign nationals the "legal" right to bear arms as it imposes on national sovernity.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHun View Post
    ...You telling me you don't want your father to be able to defend you and your mother from violent criminal attacks?...
    Want is different then understanding a nation's god given desire to maintain national sovernity (thus defining differences between citizens and non-citizens).

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHun View Post
    ...Don't even start with that there are other ways one can defend himself...
    OK

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHun View Post
    ...You twisting the lines of the 2A as you would like to read it...but is is written as it is written...
    You are taking the words out of context, so you are twisting.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheHun View Post
    ...Next time you gonna jump on minority people? How about fat people should not be allowed to own guns...as they already proved that they lacking self-control...
    Hope this statement made you feel better. I can think of no other value it provides to the conversation.

    You need to learn the value of words and their meaning. Because a nation does not grant the same rights to citizens as it does non-citizens does not make it an unjust nation, nor does it make that opinion evil.

    Has nothing to do with "minority people." As much as there are god given individual rights there are also god given rights of a nation to maintain its sovernity.

    Now if you were to agrue immigrant workers, were desperately need for the economy, and the impact of not providing a path to citizenship is unjust, I can understand. How taxes are taken out of certain aliens with no representation. I'll listen. However this has no bearing on what legal rights a citizen has in contrast to a non-citizen. The problem is the immigration process, not 2A being applied to non-citizens as a right.

  12. #132
    Member Array TheHun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    area 1
    Posts
    141
    Did you just say that if your father and mother would be legal aliens - (green card holders) and you would be the lucky child who was born here you would deny their right to bear arms and defend you from a violent criminal attack?





    Quote Originally Posted by Thanis View Post
    You need to train those Jedi skills
    Since you got the Jedis involved here... I don't wanna go down to that level, I am out.

    Have a good day,
    I carry a gun cause I can't carry a cop.

  13. #133
    Senior Member Array Al Lowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Mason, MI, USA
    Posts
    574
    Actually, unless they (The British government) changed their law recently, there is no such thing as a British Citizen. They are considered to be "subjects." And that is what the legal status of the colonists was, before the Revolution. At least, those of English origin.

  14. #134
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    12,101
    Thanis wrote: "For example, Omnibus Appropriations Act (1999) amended the 1968 Gun Control Act to prohibit, with certain exceptions, the transfer to and possession of firearms by aliens admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa. Their is a valid difference between non-citizen and citizen and the rights granted."

    Actually, this partially supports my viewpoint. By prohibiting transfer to an alien admitted under a non-immigrant visa, the inverse becomes true--an alien with an immigrant visa can lawfully obtain a firearm.

    I don't know if this provision you mentioned has ever been challenged; I frankly can't see a realistic opportunity for such as lawfully admitted non-immigrant aliens are not typically around long enough to pursue a challenge. I do think somehow our courts would find a way to get past the extension of rights to persons issue and find this exclusion O.K. But, that doesn't entirely make either your case or mine. It might turn on defining "the people" as those who permanently reside within the US. Obviously, non-immigrant aliens do not. It can't turn on "citizenship" because of the specific language in the BOR.

  15. #135
    Administrator
    Array QKShooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Off Of The X
    Posts
    35,916

    Angry Watch It Folks ~ No More Forum Rule Violations!

    2. While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks or purposeless inflammatory posts or PMs.

    Trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are strictly prohibited. You are welcome to disagree with opinions other than your own, but flaming other members will not be allowed.

    If you can't figure out how to compose a post without it being confrontational or a personal attack on someone, simply bite your lip
    and don't post it.



    If you do not like our rules or feel you cannot follow them, seek out a new venue to frequent, or start your own.

Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 5678910 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. 3 Illegal Aliens Try to Rob Off Duty Cop!
    By ExSoldier in forum In the News: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: July 31st, 2010, 12:03 PM
  2. WA Supreme Court: 2nd Amendment applies to the states via 14th Amendment due process
    By ExSoldier in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: April 11th, 2010, 05:35 PM
  3. First Zombies...now ALIENS? What's your gun?
    By ExSoldier in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: June 22nd, 2007, 10:26 PM
  4. Aliens in Politics?
    By Miggy in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: January 6th, 2007, 05:27 PM
  5. There were these Two Aliens...and
    By APachon in forum Off Topic & Humor Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: January 24th, 2005, 01:38 PM

Search tags for this page

2nd amendment alien

,

2nd amendment misunderstood

,

a non-immigrant alien may possess a rifle or shotgun for use while hunting provided

,

can a green card holder buy guns in georgia

,

can green card holder buy a gun

,

do resident aleins are protected by second ammendemnet

,

earthbound aliens

,

gun registration las vegas green card holders

,

non immigrant visa with hunting licence chl

,

resident alien with ccl purchase gun

,

resident aliens and the second amendment

,

the question does a nocitizen,have the same rights as a citizen to carry indentication cards

Click on a term to search for related topics.