Should non-citizens have equal access to firearms?

[Redworm]

If I may play devil's advocate...So what do citizens enjoy beyond noncitizens, Redworm? Is it just the right to vote? Since non-citizens should be given equal rights, why make voting tied to citizenship?

That's about it, in my opinion. The only thing citizenship should offer above residency is the ability to control the government.

Individuals convicted of felonious crimes have their right to bear arms stripped even if the crime was unrelated to arms. While I am straying from topic I think it is related. There are citizens who have not demonstrated misuse of guns who have that right removed legally.

I still don't know what the answer is on restoring all rights to felons. I don't know enough about the subject to make an informed decision.

 

[RERICK]

If your not a citizen then why should you have all the rights that go along with being a citizen ? As for as being a felon, Thats just too bad.You should have thought about the repercussions before you committed a crime.

 

[fisherman66]

I tend to agree with your first paragraph rerick, but I don't really feel comfortable making that judgment applicable to all non-citizens. Which rights should be excluded from non-citizens? Voting? Sure, I'd agree with that. I don't really know where to go after that. I don't think non-citizens should enjoy the right to check government from tyranny, but they should be allowed to protect themself.

As for as being a felon, Thats just too bad.You should have thought about the repercussions before you committed a crime.

A crime is defined by government. There is not always a victim and some crimes are committed by individuals usurping their inalienable rights. I'm not convinced everything is black and white when it comes to crimes. A mistrust for government can be a healthy thing.

 

[RERICK]

but they should be allowed to protect themself.

I still don't think they should have any access to any type of firearm unless they are here for a certain time and have become a citizen. I realize the need to protect ones self though. This guy in VA wasn't trying to protect himself . I think how to keep firearms out of the wrong hands is the issue. How to is the other.

 

[Richard Hanson]

I view the 2nd as an internal check (part of the checks and balances) on the government. The right to have means to revolt under tyranical rule. I might guess that most TFL members view this differently and relate the 2nd as a right to defend themself from other individuals.

fisherman66,

I would not disagree with this statement in the least. The 2nd does preserve in the body of the people the capacity to overthrow their own government, thus the militia language. This should come as no surprise as the men who debated and proposed the 2nd Amendment, and the society that subsequently ratified the same, had just recently gained their liberty from England by force of arms. Private arms in private hands played a significant role in our war of Independence as exemplified by such pivotal engagements as the Battle of Saratoga and the Battle of Cowpens.

I would say, however, the idea that a people have a right to overthrow their government is grounded in the Lockean conceptualization of natural rights and it is very hard to argue that this view of a just revolution is not precisely the same as that expressed in our Declaration of Independence which contained language lifted almost directly from John Locke's Two Treatises of Government.

The justification for revolution is the infringement of our natural rights and the means to restore our liberty is found in the private ownership of arms. The fact, as you have correctly ascertained, that our own government now habitually tramples over our unalienable rights makes the vigorous and indefatigable enforcement of the 2nd Amendment all the more important to the security of our liberty.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government." Thomas Jefferson

If I where to disagree with your, then that would place me in the rather uncomfortable position of also disagreeing with Mr. Jefferson. Happily, I agree.

Best Regards,
Richard

 

[Redworm]

If your not a citizen then why should you have all the rights that go along with being a citizen ? As for as being a felon, Thats just too bad.You should have thought about the repercussions before you committed a crime.

The point is that they're not rights that go along with being a citizen, they're rights that go along with being human.

 

[RERICK]

The point is that they're not rights that go along with being a citizen, they're rights that go along with being human

I think you and I can agree to disagree on that one.

 

[sasquatch]

Redworm

The point is that they're not rights that go along with being a citizen, they're rights that go along with being human.

Try going to say, China or Canada, and explaining that one.

 

[Redworm]

Try going to say, China or Canada, and explaining that one.

That would do little good. Just because they don't agree doesn't make it any less true. Then again I also believe many other things are intrinsic human rights that even people here don't believe in so my point of view isn't widely shared to begin with.

 

[FAL-schutter]

Musketeer said:

While I would like to see the right extended only to citizens of nations who recognize our right [...]

With all due respect, that's a bad idea; essentially, you're advocating restricting the freedom of an individual because of the opinions of his government and/or fellow countrymen, not necessarily his own. And I hardly need remind you that an awful lot of immigrants to America came precisely because they wanted to get away from their own governments and/or fellow citizens.

fisherman66 said:

So what do citizens enjoy beyond noncitizens, Redworm? Is it just the right to vote?

Actually, there's also the right to leave the country and come back later. A condition of permanent resident status is that you actually permanently reside in the US; if you leave for six months (job assignment overseas, say), you lose your permanent resident status. You can get this extended to a year if you talk to Citizenship and Immigration Services before you leave, but no more than that. After that, you have to apply all over again. This was actually what clinched the decision on my part to become a US citizen.

 

[Wildalaska]

First thing my wife did when she got her green card was buy a gun (well I bought the one I wanted, she just did the paperwork )

WildshesanamericannowAlaska

 

[MD_Willington]

How am I to defend my American Born Children and teach them about responsible firearms ownership

The only thing keeping me from becoming a citizen is the fact that I have to wait until June 2010 to swear in, so if any of you can arrange it earlier for me, say mid summer of this year (when I get time off), I'll gladly go to the Court House in Spokane and swear in...

Been here 7 years... obeying the laws, paying my taxes, raising American Born children, and playing the waiting game...

I've probably had more background checks than some of you natural born citizens... and I have no problem with complying to a background check as I have never committed any crimes here or in my former country of residence.

 

[RERICK]

The only thing keeping me from becoming a citizen is the fact that I have to wait until June 2010

If that is the time frame in which it takes to become a citizen then no offense, I guess thats what you have to deal with. Rules are rules though we sometimes don't think its fair or right we all have to follow the rules whether we agree or not.

 

[Redworm]

but, as he mentioned, what about his children? natural born americans but they don't deserve the same protection as your children?

 

[williamd]

No!

 

[FAL-schutter]

MD_Willington wrote:

The only thing keeping me from becoming a citizen is the fact that I have to wait until June 2010 to swear in [...]

Whoa! Another three years after (I presume) your N-400 has been processed and everything? What's the deal with that?

But there's nothing stopping you from getting an Alien Firearms License, is there? Get one of those and the world's your oyster in this state; you can even get a CPL as long as you have an AFL.

 

[MD_Willington]

FAL-schutter:
But there's nothing stopping you from getting an Alien Firearms License, is there? Get one of those and the world's your oyster in this state; you can even get a CPL as long as you have an AFL.

We're "all good" here FAL-Schutter, Local LEO and Sheriff are A-Okay with me

 

[FAL-schutter]

So you were speaking hypothetically? That's all right, then. I was worried you might have been misinformed.

 

[9mmsnoopy]

I have to say no. Gun ownership should be the right of U.S. citizens only, not people here legally on student visas, etc... and definately not for illegal immigrants. When these folks go thru proper channels and become citizens, then they can go buy a firearm.

Of course had that VT killing scumbag not been able to legally buy a gun, it wouldnt have prevented this tragedy, he could have easily gotten his hands on a firearm illegally.

Even if guns were totally outlawed as some idiots wish for, he still would have found a way to kill innocent people.

 

[RERICK]

but, as he mentioned, what about his children? natural born americans but they don't deserve the same protection as your children?

I am a citizen. He is not yet a citizen. I don't see the point. Its not a matter of what they deserve. Its a matter of what the law allows