Should non-citizens have equal access to firearms?

[FAL-schutter]

junkpile said:

Still, I think the point people have against Permanent Residents is that the theoretical position of Citizen carries either responsibilities, or proof of worth, that being a Permanent Resident does not.

I understand you're reflecting the position of others, but really, what's left as far as responsibilities carried by citizens but not by resident aliens? We pay taxes, we're eligible to be drafted, a subpoena is as binding on us as on any citizen. So that leaves jury duty and... what?

I might add that, when it comes to permanent residents like myself, we aren't in this country due to some accident of birth. We're here because we want to be, because we like it better here than in the countries of our birth. Never mistake an immigrant's love of his county of origin as an indicator of disloyalty to the United States. Take it as a compliment; despite loving our home countries, we love America more. (Is anyone watering up yet?) Add to that we don't get to vote, those of us on K-series fiancé/spouse visas waived eligibility for social security to gain entrance, and we had to undergo a criminal background check just to be let in.

Look, truth be told, I'm not massively invested in this discussion myself. I'm perfectly happy to wait until I gain citizenship (five or six months from now, hopefully) to become a gun owner. My reason for wading into this is that I cannot bear inconsistency; whether one believes that the RKBA derives from an inalienable natural right on the one hand, or from a social contract between government and the governed, and the governed among themselves, on the other, it's one or the other. You can't claim that RKBA is absolute and inalienable and transcends the laws of man, except for those who don't hold a particular document. Conversely, you can't argue that non-US citizens are denied certain rights because they are not (yet) party to a social (man-made) contract without acknowledging that contracts can be subject to renegotiation, and that any benefits one derives therefrom are thus not inalienable.

 

[Redworm]

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

And the law does allow it. He is not yet a citizen but he has the same right to life that you do.

 

[junkpile]

I think your consistency point is well-made. However, I think consistency of the opposition can still be salvaged. Within that agreement of constancy, one can suggest that the renegotiation you speak of must be done as an amendment rather than as a judical or simple legislative process. (That is, one can complain that it is right now a right of a citizen that is being wrongly violated under contract, and, while unailenable under contract, was not properly negotiated under the set-out premises).

The only thing I can think of currently that non-citizens do not have to do is take an Oath of Allegiance to the United States. (Undermining this point is that your status as a permanent resident does give the government a right to argue that you owe the country allegiance legally, hence being able to be charged with Treason).

I'm not sure on tax code, but I know that some Americans working abroad, and who have lived abroad for a decade, still pay taxes to the U.S. government (with deductions). I don't know how that pares up with Permanent Residents, but I know it is the source of a potential difference. (Apologies for using my own ignorance on the point as a potential argument, I'm hoping for some clarification from someone else if possible).

Is there no other difference between Citizens and Permanent Residents, that you can think of? Because if not, I really don't see why the U.S. even makes a distinction, if they already are carrying all the responsibilities without all the rights. The thought I'm currently operating under is that there is something citizens are obligated to do/not do that permanent residents are not. After doing some cursory research, that premise is endangered.

I'll have to congratulate you when you become a citizen! Be proud to have you then and now. Good luck, INS people can be real...*hem* annoying, to say the least.

Off-topic postscript: As for my own thoughts on felons, I think it's a mistake to deny them across the board. I think a better-operated system of a review that can reestabilsh their rights would be in order.

 

[Wildalaska]

Thats a lame excuse for not becoming a citizen. As for dual citizenship, If you come to America expect to have it both ways well I'm sorry it doesn't work like that. If you expect to have all of the rights that goes with being a citizen then you should become one.

Read my post. Im the one who is stopping her. Shes already studying for her test btw.

Compare Europe against America over the last 200 years. It'd be silly to say America has been more violent. Annihilation of Indians, American Civil War, the Philippines, and the Vietnam War against the last 200 years of European Warfare. (Germany? Russia? Yugoslavia?) I think your suggestion that American society is the most violent of "western" societies is ill-concieved.

Read my post and try again, as the point you are making is meaningless within the context of what I said.

WildorshouldirepeatitandunderlinethekeywordsAlaska

 

[junkpile]

You should underline the key words, I'm failing to understand your point. I don't mind your casting aspersions on my intelligence, I'm a bigger man than that. I just haven't followed you.

I assume your absence to continue your uncalled for accusation that I was somehow insulting your wife by saying that Pearl Harbor was a cowardly attack has been withdrawn, as you haven't addressed it in your last three posts. Please let me know if it is otherwise, as I don't think I insulted her, and I don't think anyone else did either.

As per another poster's reasoning, it may well have been that his comment as to an excuse for not becoming a citizen regarded your reason, rather than hers.

 

[Wildalaska]

American society is undoubtedly the most VOILENT of the "western" societies in terms of personal and social, vis a vis, governmental conduct.

Better?

Care to dispute that?

I dont follow the rest of your post, not that it makes much of a diff OK I reread, but this isnt the place to debate Pearl Harbour. Please however start with "At Dawn We Slept", then we can open a debate by PM, just want to make sure you are armed


WildoyeahandtimetocrimpthosecablewiresboysandgetbackonthegridAlaska

 

[junkpile]

Well, that makes two of us not understanding one another. Best leave it at that, if we both feel completely vindicated, neh?

 

[RERICK]

Wild,

I read your post and to me it wasn't very clear. I would think you of all people would encourage her to become a full fledged citizen though.

And the law does allow it. He is not yet a citizen but he has the same right to life that you do.

No the law doesn't allow it. Yes he has the same right to life. I never said otherwise. The issue of whether he can legally own a firearm is what we are talking about.

Federal Issues:
In general, non-immigrant aliens are forbidden to possess any firearms or ammunition. But there is a big exception for a legal alien who:

...is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States

(See Title 18, USC Chapter 44, Section 922, part (2) for details.)

Green-card holders and immigrant aliens who do not yet have their green card are both okay under federal law, although many people (including gun dealers, law enforcement officers, etc.) are not aware of the distinction or the hunting license exception, and erroneously think that either you have a green card, or you can't have guns.

Also, non-citizen cannot purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firerams dealer unless they have been a resident of their state for 90 days. So, no, tourists on short visits cannot walk into guns stores to get "protection" during their trip. Sorry.

http://www.vrolyk.org/guns/alien-laws.html

 

[Redworm]

No the law doesn't allow it. Yes he has the same right to life. I never said otherwise. The issue of whether he can legally own a firearm is what we are talking about.

Mr Willington has been here seven years and is presumably a legal resident. According to the information you posted non-citizens can indeed have equal access to firearms, as the thread title states. So we've established that they can, the topic of the thread is whether or not they should.

The answer is yes because they do deserve the same right to life - and subsequently, the same right to defend it - as any natural born citizen. I'm just wondering why some of y'all think one must be a citizen to own a firearm.

 

[RERICK]

the topic of the thread is whether or not they should

Then I would say NO. Period. To bad if you don't like it. Sorry thats the way it is. That pretty much sums it up for me at least.
Theres a whole bunch of things in life we don't think are fair, But we all have to deal with things that we don't like. Get over it. Get a big dog or a baseball bat.

 

[auburnboattail]

Visa

If one is here on a Visa or for that matter any NON -Citizen you are a quest in our home. As such one should not and should not have the rights of citizens.
That includes no gun ownership, no right to vote, no right to social programs.
If you one wants to obtain those rights then the legal route should be a specific number of years of residency, tests including general historical knowledge, psychological and language skills testing and finally obtaining citizenship then with full rights exclusive of holding some key positions of decision making power including, President, Vice President, Secretary of State, Secretary of defense and related sensitive national security positions.

The clearly disturbed Cho should have been deported in 2005 when it was deemed hew was mentally ill by the state of VA. Any non citizen that are deemed mentally ill, break any law including misdemeanors should be deported.
Strict enforcement of these measures, 32 innocents would be alive.

 

[RERICK]

auburnboattail,

Well said.

 

[Redworm]

Then I would say NO. Period. To bad if you don't like it. Sorry thats the way it is. That pretty much sums it up for me at least.
Theres a whole bunch of things in life we don't think are fair, But we all have to deal with things that we don't like. Get over it. Get a big dog or a baseball bat.

I'm still wondering why. If a baseball bat or a big dog is good enough for a foreigner then it's good enough for you.

Strict enforcement of these measures, 32 innocents would be alive.

Strict enforcement of gun control laws, 32 innocents would be alive. So how easy that works out?

 

[RERICK]

Redworm,
Why do you turn everything into urinating contest ?
Also what part of NO don't you understand. You can say it a thousand times any way you spin it I would say NO. Am I clear ?

 

[SecDef]

Why do you turn everything into urinating contest ?
Also what part of NO don't you understand. You can say it a thousand times any way you spin it I would say NO. Am I clear ?

This isn't a poll, it's a discussion board. You seem pretty dead set on your opinion, but when asked WHY, you are the opposite of persuasive in your arguments.

 

[junkpile]

Also what part of NO don't you understand.

I think he's understood it quite well. He's asking a why of your opinion, not a what is.

Having failed to defend your point, I would also like to know. I honestly tried my best, but cannot think of any responsibilities that Citizens have that Permanent Residents do not that would justify Citizens deserving greater rights for their greater burden.

 

[RERICK]

This isn't a poll, it's a discussion board. You seem pretty dead set on your opinion, but when asked WHY, you are the opposite of persuasive in your arguments.

I think I am entitled to have my opinion and stick to it. Liberals seem to thrive on arguing a point. I hear what is said, I have another view and refuse to let him ,You or anyone else change my opinion. What I don't get is why you guy's can't just state an opinion and move on. I simply don't agree with what he said. You and Redworm are entitled to feel the way you feel. I don't see it. For me it's just that simple. Why don't you understand that is beyond me. Now if you have a problem with that then that's your problem.

 

[SecDef]

Nobody's asking you to change your opinion, just to stop stamping your feet repeating the same thing over and over.

Because when someone asks WHY you have an opinion, and you refuse to even attempt to explain it, it suggests that your opinion isn't very well thought out.

Cause, see, it's a LIBERAL thing to just "feel" the answer and not have a rational reason for it. Why you behave like a hippie is beyond me.

 

[RERICK]

Why you behave like a hippie is beyond me.

Why you behave like MORON and can't understand plain english is beyond me.

 

[Redworm]

dude I'm not trying to change your mind. I've learned that sometimes it's just not possible on certain issues that are near and dear to me but in this case since the law already allows non-citizens to buy guns I'm not too worried about getting people to agree with me

I'm just curious as to why you don't think they should have guns. That's all.