PDA

View Full Version : Foreigner owning guns in America


Pulsar
04-19-2007, 7:19 PM
Just got into a big argument with a bunch of friends over gun rights and the v-tech thing.

All my friends are pro-gun but they started arguing that in no way should foreign citizens, Legal or Illegal be allowed to own a gun. This upset me as I believe everyone is entitled to the right to protect themselves. I was getting really upset with a couple of them who believed that a foreigner has a right to free speech, but they don't have a right to buy a gun. One of them firmly believed foreigners shouldn't have any protection from the constitution, and I really couldn't come up with an argument against that.

This got me pretty riled up, and I do sort of see there point, but I also think it's an overly exclusionary attitude. It's got me really riled up and I kind of realize that I was doing a knee jerk reaction defending guns, but I still think I'm right.

What are your thoughts?

Sydwaiz
04-19-2007, 7:23 PM
IMO if they are here legally, then they have every right that U.S. citizens do. If they are illegal then all bets are off.

cartman
04-19-2007, 7:27 PM
If a person does everything legally as far as getting here then they should be able to defend themselves imo. The same for the rest of the contitution. Illegals though I feel should get no protection at all. It sounds harsh but thats just how I feel.Why reward breaking the law?

hoffmang
04-19-2007, 7:32 PM
The Second Amendment is a natural right. The theory behind the right is that it arises out of the state of man, not out of government or permission. There is potentially an argument that being in the nation illegally is a violation that should disable the right to arms, but anyone here with permission has the right to arms in the same way they should have the right to not be arrested and held without due process.

-Gene

Teletiger7
04-19-2007, 7:35 PM
Regardless of legality. The fact of the matter is that if they are here and they have the money and are determined enough they would be able to buy guns anyway on the blackmarket. Criminals will sell you weapons if you have cash, regardless of if you are legal, illegal, etc. The current laws and the way they are enforced does nothing to stop this. I'm of the opinion that that guy would have gotten guns anyway, even if it was illegal for him to do so. Guns laws don't affect criminals very much, they keep buying and selling guns illegally regardless of gun laws. All gun laws did in this situation("gunfree zone" on campus) was prevent legal, responsible citizens, from defending themselves from this guy. So basically he proved that a "gunfree zone" is where a total psycho like him or the columbine kids can go if they wanna kill alot of people without any resistance. :(

biff
04-19-2007, 7:38 PM
IMO if they are here legally, then they have every right that U.S. citizens do. If they are illegal then all bets are off.

Amen to that!

The SoCal Gunner
04-19-2007, 7:39 PM
If they are here legally, and pay all taxes and are treated like other naturally born citizens, why should they not be allowed to own guns?

That kind of thinking is dangerous. Remember when the Japanese many who were naturally born citizens were put into internment camps during the war?

FatKatMatt
04-19-2007, 8:13 PM
I think foreigners should have to have citizenship before they enjoy the full benefits of being one.

flooby
04-19-2007, 8:37 PM
I agree if you're here illegally you shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Some drug dealer that runs from TJ to San Diego shouldn't be able to buy a gun. Besides, if you're here illegally, who know what you're doing from where you're from..

I think I would define "legally here" as either green card or citizen. People with work visas or visitor visa's shouldn't be allowed..

gose
04-19-2007, 8:37 PM
Would be interesting to see the conviction rate for LEGAL aliens vs the conviction rate for citizens.
Maybe it's safer to take away the guns for citizens?

patman
04-19-2007, 8:38 PM
What percentage of people living in the "United States" of the 1700 and 1800's had citizenship or were born in North America even? If I recall correctly, a long time poster/contributor/positive influence here, ca_brit, would have been denied.

If they are here legally, pay taxes, etc. they should get all the benefits except the few that are explicitly denied. i.e. right to vote [influence our government]. I have several friends who came here for school on a student visa, got their green card, and eventually became naturalized. They worked freaking hard to be where they are now. Harder and sharing more than most who were born as a citizens! [they probably understand the constitution better than born citizens without having had civics class in HS]


I think foreigners should have to have citizenship before they enjoy the full benefits of being one.

I have to agree with Gene!

The Second Amendment is a natural right. The theory behind the right is that it arises out of the state of man, not out of government or permission.

SemiAutoSam
04-19-2007, 8:43 PM
I have to agree here.

Once they have assimilated into the American culture and become one of us then and only then should they be able to have all of the rights we have.

Not only was the guy from Va Tech a lunatic but it also looks like he had terrorist ties if you believe the bit about the writing in red on his arm.

He couldn't handle the American way of life thats most likely partly why he went off the deep end. If this guy had just a green card IMHO he had no business owning or possessing a firearm of any kind.



I think foreigners should have to have citizenship before they enjoy the full benefits of being one.

1SGMAT
04-19-2007, 10:02 PM
Originally Posted by FatKatMatt
I think foreigners should have to have citizenship before they enjoy the full benefits of being one.

I agree with this.

What percentage of people living in the "United States" of the 1700 and 1800's had citizenship or were born in North America even? If I recall correctly, a long time poster/contributor/positive influence here, ca_brit, would have been denied.

Was not until late 1700 that we even had the right to keep and bear arms.


I believe if they want the rights of a U.S. Citizen they need to become one. The right to self defense is a human right, it's not a right to K&B arms.

Incitatus
04-19-2007, 10:04 PM
Legal residents who by definition obeyed the US law when they came into this country, who pay taxes (and many of them even run their own business), are entitled to defend their lives their families and their property just like any US citizen. Taken as a percentage, legal residents are the most dynamic and most numerous category of small bussiness owners in America, the people who save the most, the people who make the greatest efforts to acheive the American Dream. This is how it always was, and this is how it will always be.
For you, those who think you are better and you should have the right to defend yourself just because you were born by chance in the USA, I say: you didn't worked your arses, you didn't paid the price, you didn't do anything out of the ordinary to deserve to live here; your parents or your grandparents did, not you. Nobody denied your parents or grandparents the right to defend themselves when they came here, yet you are ready to deny the same right to others. Talking about gun-grabbing mentality...look yourself in the window.
Most of you didn't even served your country, yet you are ready to deny the RKBA to thousands upon thousands of legal residents who are enlisted in the military and go to war for you.
So why do you think you are better than somebody who came here LEGALLY, paid the price in sweat and tears, is contributing with taxes to the like anyone else is doing? Maybe the legal resident you want to deny the RKBA is taking a bullet for you in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe in his pursuit of the American Dream a legal immigrant is very likely offering YOU a job. You think you have the right to protect your family and the legal immigrant who gives you the opportunity to put bread on the table doesn't?
Ever tought about that before opening your mouths?

Mssr. Eleganté
04-19-2007, 10:24 PM
It's disheartening to see a couple of folks here who don't understand the difference between a God given right and a government granted privilege. :(

We should be encouraging the airlines to teach gun safety courses to all passengers on the flights over here instead of playing those crappy movies. Then we could have handgun rentals next to the baggage claim carrousel. Visitors to our country could check out a handgun to carry during their trip and get their deposit back when they depart.

More guns = less crime! Either you believe it or you don't.

SemiAutoSam
04-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Incitatus you are missing my point 100% I'm saying they must assimilate into a American citizen before they have the rights of one.

Somewhat like they did when my great grandfather was processed through ellis island so many years ago.

But beyond that the Constitution gives us the law with regard to United States Citizens and or United States citizens as well.
http://www.state-citizen.org/
http://www.angelfire.com/az/sthurston/On_State_Citizenship.html

That would be impossible for anyone that wasn't born here.

While its true a individual could become a "United States citizen" Only a natural born Citizen is eligible to be a united states Citizen as explained in the Constitution for the United States.

You would understand a lot more about this subject if you took a look at the website below.
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

Or maybe you don't believe this as thats another thing we all have in this semi great country the ability to make decisions about what we believe and what we do not.

Keep in mind there are 2 kinds of US Citizens the US Citizen described in the Constitution and the US citizen described in the 14th amendment to the constitution.





Originally Posted by FatKatMatt
I think foreigners should have to have citizenship before they enjoy the full benefits of being one.

I agree with this.

What percentage of people living in the "United States" of the 1700 and 1800's had citizenship or were born in North America even? If I recall correctly, a long time poster/contributor/positive influence here, ca_brit, would have been denied.

Was not until late 1700 that we even had the right to keep and bear arms.


I believe if they want the rights of a U.S. Citizen they need to become one. The right to self defense is a human right, it's not a right to K&B arms.





Legal residents who by definition obeyed the US law when they came into this country, who pay taxes (and many of them even run their own business), are entitled to defend their lives their families and their property just like any US citizen. Taken as a percentage, legal residents are the most dynamic and most numerous category of small business owners in America, the people who save the most, the people who make the greatest efforts to achieve the American Dream. This is how it always was, and this is how it will always be.
For you, those who think you are better and you should have the right to defend yourself just because you were born by chance in the USA, I say: you didn't worked your arses, you didn't paid the price, you didn't do anything out of the ordinary to deserve to live here; your parents or your grandparents did, not you. Nobody denied your parents or grandparents the right to defend themselves when they came here, yet you are ready to deny the same right to others. Most of you didn't even served your country, yet you are ready to deny the RKBA to tens of thousands of legal residents who are enlisted in the military.
So why do you think you are better than somebody who came here LEGALLY, paid the price in sweat and tears, is contributing with taxes like anyone else? Maybe the legal resident is taking a bullet for you in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe in his pursuit of the American Dream is very likely offering YOU a job? Ever tought about that before opening your mouths?

DedEye
04-19-2007, 10:39 PM
Legal residents who by definition obeyed the US law when they came into this country, who pay taxes (and many of them even run their own business), are entitled to defend their lives their families and their property just like any US citizen. Taken as a percentage, legal residents are the most dynamic and most numerous category of small bussiness owners in America, the people who save the most, the people who make the greatest efforts to acheive the American Dream. This is how it always was, and this is how it will always be.
For you, those who think you are better and you should have the right to defend yourself just because you were born by chance in the USA, I say: you didn't worked your arses, you didn't paid the price, you didn't do anything out of the ordinary to deserve to live here; your parents or your grandparents did, not you. Nobody denied your parents or grandparents the right to defend themselves when they came here, yet you are ready to deny the same right to others. Talking about gun-grabbing mentality...look yourself in the window.
Most of you didn't even served your country, yet you are ready to deny the RKBA to thousands upon thousands of legal residents who are enlisted in the military and go to war for you.
So why do you think you are better than somebody who came here LEGALLY, paid the price in sweat and tears, is contributing with taxes to the like anyone else is doing? Maybe the legal resident you want to deny the RKBA is taking a bullet for you in Iraq or Afghanistan. Maybe in his pursuit of the American Dream a legal immigrant is very likely offering YOU a job. You think you have the right to protect your family and the legal immigrant who gives you the opportunity to put bread on the table doesn't?
Ever tought about that before opening your mouths?

As rare as this is to say (and I feel no shame and am quite happy to say this), I agree with Incitatus 100% :D.

rorschach
04-19-2007, 10:49 PM
As rare as this is to say (and I feel no shame and am quite happy to say this), I agree with Incitatus 100% :D.

Big +1

Incitatus
04-19-2007, 10:51 PM
Incitatus you are missing my point 100% I'm saying they must assimilate into a American citizen before they have the rights of one.

Somewhat like they did when my great grandfather was processed through ellis island so many years ago.

But beyond that the Constitution gives us the law with regard to United States Citizens and or United States citizens as well.

That would be impossible for anyone that wasn't born here.

While its true a individual could become a "United States citizen" Only a natural born Citizen is eligible to be a united states Citizen as explained in the Constitution for the United States.

You would understand a lot more about this subject if you took a look at the website below.
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/constitutions.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/14thamend.php
http://www.originalintent.org/edu/citizenship.php

Or maybe you don't believe this as thats another thing we all have in this semi great country the ability to make decisions about what we believe and what we do not.

Keep in mind there are 2 kinds of US Citizens the US Citizen described in the Constitution and the US citizen described in the 14th amendment to the constitution.




When he got off the Ellis Island your great grandfather went to the first gunshop down the street and purchased a gun. Nobody told him "hey, you're just an immigrant, you have no right to own a gun in this country". Yet, somehow you reached the conclusion what was right for him isn't right for others. Must be because you worked so hard to become a citizen by birth. We are talking about the God given right to defend yourself, not about a government given privilege. Is that so hard to understand? Tell an US soldier who comes back on leave from the war and isn't a naturalized citizen yet: "thank you for your service but you don't have the right to own a gun in this country".
Sounds silly, isn't it? Well, maybe because it is.

SemiAutoSam
04-19-2007, 11:07 PM
Immigrants don't have god given rights as they cannot be United States Citizens.

Immigrants can only have Civil rights. as they are naturalized United States citizens. They aren't the same thing.

If you don't understand this I'm sorry.

When he got off the Ellis Island your great grandfather went to the first gunshop down the street and purchased a gun. Nobody told him "hey, you're just an immigrant, you have no right to own a gun in this country". Yet, somehow you reached the conclusion what was right for him isn't right for others. Must be because you worked so hard to become a citizen by birth. We are talking about the God given right to defend yourself, not about a government given privilege. Is that so hard to understand? Tell an US soldier who comes back on leave from the war and isn't a naturalized citizen yet: "thank you for your service but you don't have the right to own a gun in this country".
Sounds silly, isn't it? Well, maybe because it is.

hoffmang
04-19-2007, 11:19 PM
Sam,

Following your logic very precisely, a Christian in the Vatican doesn't have god given rights because he's not a US citizen?

-Gene

Kestryll
04-19-2007, 11:22 PM
So God only grants basic rights to Americans?

It that really what you are trying to say?




Hmmm...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Mssr. Eleganté
04-19-2007, 11:24 PM
Immigrants don't have god given rights as they cannot be United States Citizens.

Um, Sam...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You don't need to be a citizen or Citizen of the United States to have God given rights. God has jurisdiction over the whole planet. :p

Mssr. Eleganté
04-19-2007, 11:29 PM
Gene where is it written in the US constitution that Italian citizens have god given rights ?

The Constitution is a document that grants the Federal government certain powers. Those powers not granted in the constitution are reserved for the States or the People.

So Sam, show us exactly where the Constitution grants the power to the Federal government to disarm any freeman.

SemiAutoSam
04-19-2007, 11:32 PM
I don't think so In my understanding the Constitution for the United States limits the power of the Federal Government. Not Grants the fed the powers it has.

Define Freeman ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_rights

The Constitution is a document that grants the Federal government certain powers. Those powers not granted in the constitution are reserved for the States or the People.

So Sam, show us exactly where the Constitution grants the power to the Federal government to disarm any freeman.

Kestryll
04-19-2007, 11:41 PM
So God only grants basic rights to Americans?

It that really what you are trying to say?


Well?

dicast
04-19-2007, 11:42 PM
LEGAL alien does have every right included own guns except VOTING right

Mssr. Eleganté
04-19-2007, 11:44 PM
I don't think so In my understanding the Constitution for the United States limits the power of the Federal Government. Not Grants the fed the powers it has.

Correct, it limits the power of the Federal government by only granting the Federal government certain powers. But since you deleted your post asking "...where is it written in the US constitution that Italian citizens have god given rights ? " maybe you understand this after all.

Define Freeman ?

You know, freeman...a free man, as in...

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

SemiAutoSam
04-19-2007, 11:44 PM
No thats not what I was trying to say.

What I was trying to say is there is a difference between rights of a natural born citizen and one that is a naturalized citizen. IE a citizen that was not born in this country.

Well?


The federal government abolished what was considered a freeman when they created a 14th amendment United States citizen. and or what some call a sovereign Citizen. While there are ways to achieve the status of a "Freeman" or "sovereign Citizen" The path is not an easy one Nor is it a path without obstacles placed in the path by the processes that are in place in the modern day life of most Americans.


You know, freeman...a free man, as in...

Kestryll
04-19-2007, 11:50 PM
No thats not what I was trying to say.

What I was trying to say is there is a difference between rights of a natural born citizen and one that is a naturalized citizen. IE a citizen that was not born in this country.

Okay, that's true there are some things a citizen born here can do that a naturalized citizen can't.
I think it's a short list of things but it is a list none the less.

I'm not trying to ride you Sam I'm trying to get you to present your point a bit differently. I think sometimes it's not that your views or opinions are that extreme or different, instead I think it's the way they are worded or presented that fails to get your concept across.

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 12:02 AM
Well sometimes it takes alot of effort to do that and I guess I am lazy at times. But at the moment im very tired so I will say Au revoir mon ami.

Okay, that's true there are some things a citizen born here can do that a naturalized citizen can't.
I think it's a short list of things but it is a list none the less.

I'm not trying to ride you Sam I'm trying to get you to present your point a bit differently. I think sometimes it's not that your views or opinions are that extreme or different, instead I think it's the way they are worded or presented that fails to get your concept across.

Kestryll
04-20-2007, 12:06 AM
Get some sleep, the keyboard will be here in the morning! :D

C.G.
04-20-2007, 1:54 AM
Immigrants don't have god given rights as they cannot be United States Citizens.

Immigrants can only have Civil rights. as they are naturalized United States citizens. They aren't the same thing.

If you don't understand this I'm sorry.

Sam, get a grip. I am a naturalized citizen, which basically means that I am an immigrant. Never asked for any aid, put myself though school and the reason I am here is because of the "sphere" while back. Did my time for the goverment. What makes you so better than me outside of the fact that I cannot be a president.

There are times you are funny, but not on this one.

Dont Tread on Me
04-20-2007, 4:42 AM
This is a tricky one. I can see it from the citizen side. From my side as a permanent resident counting the days until he qualifies for citizenship (~40 left) I'm very glad that I've been allowed to defend myself and my natural born American wife over the past seven years.

I'm subject to being drafted into the US military, I'm paying my taxes, I passed a FBI background check, and I passed a medical for communicable diseases to get my green card.

I would have become a citizen seven years ago if I could have. We just have a slow process with an even slower Government agency running it. It is bad enough having to jump through all these hoops and pay thousands of dollars to lawyers while I have to drive around illegal immigrants every day. Don't disarm me too!

Dont Tread on Me
04-20-2007, 4:50 AM
Okay, that's true there are some things a citizen born here can do that a naturalized citizen can't.

I think the only limit is being president. I'm not aware of anything else.

Incitatus
04-20-2007, 8:40 AM
We are talking about a Creator given RIGHT. We are not talking about a government granted PRIVLEGE. There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the words.
The holding of US citizenship does not make one a member of God's chosen. Period.
But then, maybe SAS and the others who think like him maybe really believe they are God's choosen people afterall...who are we to judge their birth earned privileges?


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.








It says the right of the people , not the right of the US citizens.

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 8:47 AM
Hmmmm Since I don't have the desire to be flamed by you or anyone else I'm not going to point out how your wrong I'm just going to let you think about it for a while and simply point out I have posted things in the past that would show you how this statement you have made does not hold true.

Read dred scot v sanford and Tennessee valley authority case about availing yourself of all government privileges there are 7 elements that are important here. Also plessey v ferguson

Remove the 7 elements and you will be a freeman as was spoken about previously.

That is all.

We are talking about a Creator given RIGHT. We are not talking about a government granted PRIVILEGE. There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the words.
The holding of US citizenship does not make one a member of God's chosen. Period.
But then, maybe SAS and the others who think like him maybe really believe they are God's choosen people afterall...


A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.








It says the right of the people , not the right of the US citizens.

Kestryll
04-20-2007, 8:48 AM
We are talking about a Creator given RIGHT. We are not talking about a government granted PRIVLEGE. There is a considerable difference in the meaning of the words.
The holding of US citizenship does not make one a member of God's chosen. Period.
But then, maybe SAS and the others who think like him maybe really believe they are God's choosen people afterall...who are we to judge their birth earned privileges?


Obviously you either missed the clarification or are ignoring it in order to continue the snivel-fest.
Here, it'll be easier to see this way.

No thats not what I was trying to say.

What I was trying to say is there is a difference between rights of a natural born citizen and one that is a naturalized citizen. IE a citizen that was not born in this country.

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 9:00 AM
No I was talking about status and US Supreme court cases.

And then there is my understanding that the United States Declaration of Independence is not the document that guarantees rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
The United States Declaration of Independence was an act of the Second Continental Congress, adopted on July 4, 1776, which declared that the Thirteen Colonies were independent of the Kingdom of Great Britain.



Obviously you either missed the clarification or are ignoring it in order to continue the snivel-fest.
Here, it'll be easier to see this way.

Scope
04-20-2007, 9:01 AM
One of them firmly believed foreigners shouldn't have any protection from the constitution ...

I would have to agree with this statement. I see the Constitution as a contract between citizen and citizen and between citizens and the state. If someone is not a citizen then they don't have a right to the protections of the contract. Of course laws should be passed that are just and protect foreign visitors, but I don't see them as having the rights entitled by the Constitution to citizens.

Kestryll
04-20-2007, 9:07 AM
No I was talking about status and US Supreme court cases.

Sam I was referring to Incitatus' post in which he sems to have missed the clarification comment you made last night not your post immediately preceding my reply.

SemiAutoSam
04-20-2007, 9:18 AM
I noted that but we are talking about 2 different documents Incitatus is quoting the declaration of independence and I am talking about items in the constitution and the bill of rights.

The declaration of independence does not guarantee rights Constitutional or Civil IMHO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence
Old Abe also spoke about this document.
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."



Sam I was referring to Incitatus' post in which he seems to have missed the clarification comment you made last night not your post immediately preceding my reply.

costayoung
04-20-2007, 10:41 AM
Once they have assimilated into the American culture and become one of us then and only then should they be able to have all of the rights we have.


Assimilation into American culture is not the same as American citizenship. What kind of requirements would you recommend? I personally don't understand people that don't like baseball or apple pie, but that doesn't mean I would keep them from owning guns.

Although I was living in Chicago during the LA riots, I recall vividly the images of the armed small business owners in Korea Town defending their shops with firearms. The K-Town then, and today, is a mix of US-born, naturalized, resident-alien, illegals. I didn't really see anything wrong with them owning guns for protection, nor do I today.

I would feel more safe if we concentrated on restricting gun ownership to the mentally sound, rather then US citizens.

cadurand
04-20-2007, 1:13 PM
The Constitution of the United States of America is the LAW OF THE LAND regardless of citizenship.

If you are on US soil(legally), with some exceptions, you are garanteed freedom of speech, the right to remain silent, and the right to keep and bear arms among the other goodies tucked away in the Constitution.

In theory anyhow. The 2nd amendement of the Bill of Rights seems to stop at the California border for example.

1SGMAT
04-20-2007, 2:01 PM
OK, OK I give. I have seen through these post some good argument that has swayed my view and when you look at all the Documents that started and maintained this country I can see that everyone here legaly should be able to KABA.
Some of you explained your views better than others and I am glad it did not get to dirty.
As for not defending this countries freedoms, or my rights to think and feel as I do (and to have my mind changed). I have done it on more than one occasion. But thats a whole different thread.