Should it be legal for foreign nationals to own & carry guns?

[mrjarrell]

No. Nobody should ever be charged for possessing a firearm. There should be no such charge.

^^This. It's a human right and possession of the tools of defence should never be a crime.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No. Nobody should ever be charged for possessing a firearm. There should be no such charge.

^^This. It's a human right and possession of the tools of defence should never be a crime.

Ok, now where getting somewhere. I'm assuming an undocumented person being allowed to posses a frearm in a nation they have no business being in, falls under the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?

Ok, then articulate why they should not be here at all. If they are entitled to all the privleges of being American (sans the 2 condtions of voting holding office), why can they simply stay and have what would be undoubtedly a better life for themselves? ...which, I disagree with.

 

[jbombelli]

Ok, now where getting somewhere. I'm assuming an undocumented person being allowed to posses a frearm in a nation they have no business being in, falls under the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?

Ok, then articulate why they should not be here at all. If they are entitled to all the privleges of being American (sans the 2 condtions of voting holding office), why can they simply stay and have what would be undoubtedly a better life for themselves? ...which, I disagree with.

Being here legally or not is a separate issue. It doesn't fall under "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness" as much as it is simply an issue of ALL people having the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. I will never be a party to stripping that right from anyone, no matter who they are, how they came to be here, or what they may have done in their lives.

As far as I'm concerned, only citizens have the right to BE here. For anyone else, being here is a privilege.

 

[jeremy]

not so fast there J. I'm askin f they should be charged if caught with a firearm.

Yes they should. Is it not a Standard Practice to Stack Charges on someone who is a Criminal?!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Being here legally or not is a separate issue. It doesn't fall under "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness" as much as it is simply an issue of ALL people having the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. I will never be a party to stripping that right from anyone, no matter who they are, how they came to be here, or what they may have done in their lives.

As far as I'm concerned, only citizens have the right to BE here. For anyone else, being here is a privilege.

No, it's not a separate issue. Explain to me why only citizens have a right to be here? When the nation was being run by the founders, pretty much all comers were taken. The only provision that mattered was the the criteria upon which they could be considered for citizenship.
Many could care less about voting or holding office. They saw a place to pursue happiness, and they came. What makes now dfferent from then?

 

[jeremy]

No, it's not a separate issue. Explain to me why only citizens have a right to be here? When the nation was being run by the founders, pretty much all comers were taken. The only provision that mattered was the the criteria upon which they could be considered for citizenship.
Many could care less about voting or holding office. They saw a place to pursue happiness, and they came. What makes now dfferent from then?

Huh...

Do we have different Founders Times in mind...

The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but places no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship is limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 lengthened required residency to become citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 further lengthened required residency to become citizen registers white immigrants to establish date of initial residency.
The Naturalization Act of 1870
The Page Act of 1875 is the first act restricting immigration.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was an explicitly race-based immigration act.
The 1882 Immigration Act made several categories of immigrants ineligible for citizenship, including "lunatics" and those likely to become public charges
The Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 prohibited "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia."
The Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.
The Geary Act of 1892 extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act

 

[jbombelli]

No, it's not a separate issue. Explain to me why only citizens have a right to be here? When the nation was being run by the founders, pretty much all comers were taken. The only provision that mattered was the the criteria upon which they could be considered for citizenship.
Many could care less about voting or holding office. They saw a place to pursue happiness, and they came. What makes now dfferent from then?

We reserve the right to deport anybody we want who's not a citizen because we're a sovereign nation. Just as I reserve the right to toss anyone out of my house who isn't part of my family.

If that's not how it is, that's how it should be.

Call it my American arrogance if you'd like.

But that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This tangent has absolutely no bearing on the universal applicability of that right. It doesn't matter why they're here, or how they came to be here, or what I think about who can be here vs. who can't, and why. All people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. Period.

 

[rooster007]

no let them become american first , then extend rights

 

[Kutnupe14]

Huh...

Do we have different Founders Times in mind...

The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but places no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship is limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 lengthened required residency to become citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 further lengthened required residency to become citizen registers white immigrants to establish date of initial residency.


The Naturalization Act of 1870
The Page Act of 1875 is the first act restricting immigration.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was an explicitly race-based immigration act.
The 1882 Immigration Act made several categories of immigrants ineligible for citizenship, including "lunatics" and those likely to become public charges
The Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 prohibited "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia."
The Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.
The Geary Act of 1892 extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act

No we're talking about the same founders. By 1870, I'm thinking they were all dead. Thanks for co-signing.

 

[Sylvain]

no let them become american first , then extend rights

Extend rights?

I had the right to self defense when I was born, I dont see how it can be extended.

 

[Kutnupe14]

We reserve the right to deport anybody we want who's not a citizen because we're a sovereign nation. Just as I reserve the right to toss anyone out of my house who isn't part of my family.

If that's not how it is, that's how it should be.

Call it my American arrogance if you'd like.

But that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This tangent has absolutely no bearing on the universal applicability of that right. It doesn't matter why they're here, or how they came to be here, or what I think about who can be here vs. who can't, and why. All people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. Period.

I'm glad that you have it, you should. I also think, that in our arrogance we should reserve our rights to our ctizens. The others must prove that they should be extended to them.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Extend rights?

I had the right to self defense when I was born, I dont see how it can be extended.

is the right to vote, a right or a privlege? Or does it matter your citizenship?

 

[rooster007]

Extend rights?

I had the right to self defense when I was born, I dont see how it can be extended.

OK LET ME SEE IF I CAN SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU SYLVAIN ............. LET THEM BECOME FULL FLEDGED AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST BEFORE WE START HAND THEM OUT ALL THE PRIVLEDGES THAT COME ALONG WITH IT ............... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ................... IF YOUR ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..........YOU DONT GET ALL THE RIGHTS ........

 

[jbombelli]

I'm glad that you have it, you should. I also think, that in our arrogance we should reserve our rights to our ctizens. The others must prove that they should be extended to them.

THAT'S JUST IT.

THEY'RE NOT *OUR* RIGHTS. THEY'RE *EVERYBODY'S* RIGHTS.


We find your arguments tawdry and unconvincing, and remain unmoved by your grandstanding appeal to patriotism as justification to strip people of their rights.

 

[eldirector]

OK LET ME SEE IF I CAN SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU SYLVAIN ............. LET THEM BECOME FULL FLEDGED AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST BEFORE WE START HAND THEM OUT ALL THE PRIVLEDGES THAT COME ALONG WITH IT ............... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ................... IF YOUR ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..........YOU DONT GET ALL THE [STRIKE]RIGHTS [/STRIKE] privileges........

It really sounds like some constitutional amendments are in order.

First, we need to reclassify some of our natural rights as privileges to be dolled out by a benevolent government. Religion and speech can stay, but defense of self and country have to go. From some of the comments, your right to privacy (illegal search and seizure), and justice (due process, double jeopardy, jury trial, and unusual punishment) would all go as well. Only citizens get those, and as a privilege, they could be revoked for you as well.

I have absolutely zero issue with someone that is in this country perfectly legally, as a citizen, holding a visa, or otherwise, owning a weapon for protection or even sport. That is one of the things that makes America different. We understand your natural rights, and will help you protect them.

Now, become a criminal (either by committing a felony or entering illegally), then your rights should be restricted. Personally, I would only restrict them while in prison, or while on route to the border (where you are welcome to exercise them again - but somewhere else).

 

[Sylvain]

is the right to vote, a right or a privlege? Or does it matter your citizenship?

Well I think it becomes a right when you are a citizen.I would say it's even more than a right, it's also a duty.

In some countries, like Belgium or Brazil for exemple, it's not just a right but also a legal duty to vote and you can be charged for not voting.
I think it's a duty in the US too, even if it's not legally the case.
I mean if you dont vote you shouldn't complain about what's going on in the country.

But the right to vote and the right to self defense are two different things and two different kinds of rights in my opinion.

As a foreign national I believe I have the right to self defense, no matter where I am.In my native country or in any other country on the globe.
And I have that right even if it's not granted by the local laws.
(Would you not defend yourself in X Country because X Country's laws say that non citizens dont have the right to self defense?)

A German citizen visiting the US would have that right just like a US citizen visiting Germany would have that right.

The right to vote, on the other hand, is different in the way that you cant just show up in any country and vote for the local elections.
In the US, as a foreign national, im not claiming the right to vote.I know that I have to be a citizen for that and I think it's fair.
But my right to self defense is tottaly different, im not going to let someone kill me when being attacked because my passport doesn't say "US Citizen" on it.


Im not sure if im clear or if I answered your question.

 

[Sylvain]

OK LET ME SEE IF I CAN SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU SYLVAIN ............. LET THEM BECOME FULL FLEDGED AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST BEFORE WE START HAND THEM OUT ALL THE PRIVLEDGES THAT COME ALONG WITH IT ............... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ................... IF YOUR ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..........YOU DONT GET ALL THE RIGHTS ........

No I dont understand and I dont agree with you.

I dont need to take ANY pledge to have the right to defend my life and the life of my loved ones.That's a basic human right and it's not granted depending on your citizenship.
You live on earth? Then you have this right.Period.

You think I will let a criminal kill me if im attacked because according to you I have no right to defend myself?

Im glad I have that right and im glad I can legally defend myself like anybody else in this country, US citizen or not.

 

[jeremy]

is the right to vote, a right or a privlege? Or does it matter your citizenship?

Voting is a Privilege of Citizenship...

 

[rooster007]

OK as a member of the country club , when i go out on the course i can use any club I want to. but as a GUEST , I can only use a root or a putter , if I want to have full play in the game , I need to buy a membership , that doesn't mean I can't play golf , that only means if I want full course rights
I have to be a member

 

[Kutnupe14]

THAT'S JUST IT.

THEY'RE NOT *OUR* RIGHTS. THEY'RE *EVERYBODY'S* RIGHTS.


We find your arguments tawdry and unconvincing, and remain unmoved by your grandstanding appeal to patriotism as justification to strip people of their rights.

We? Are you the Borg? lol...

I find it interesting that it has been cited that our founding father allowed people to immigrate and live here in, in the new nation, as they saw fit. Apparently they believe other people had the "right" to live here. After there deaths, that policy was subsequently changed, and limitations were placed on immigration.
Now you say, that Amercans have the "right," to deny entry or deport anyone who is not American.
So I'm missing how, your belief doesn't run afoul of you belief indicating that all foreign nationals should be allowed to possess firearms. Simply put, you're flip flopping to suit your ideals. Does a person have a right to defend themselves, as you say? Ok lets say that they do... But by that train of thought, doesnt a person also have a right to live wherever they want, in a place that will provide them the best chance for success for them and their family, as well? You can't have one, and not the other.... at least not when citing natural rights. Natural Rights, as envsioned, supercedes a Nation's sovereignty. It's NWO type of thinking; that a series of "ultimate" laws trump the laws of the State and it's inhabitants.

People that toil the land, fill the seats of govt, and support the state are granted with the crazy idea called self determination. How they choose to run their govt, and the privileges they extend to non-citizens, is purely up to them. If someone is a non-citizen and they have a problem wth it, there are two options.... become a citizen or leave.