Should non-citizens have equal access to firearms?

Gun ownership should be the right of U.S. citizens only,
Click to expand...

My wife is a permanet resident. She works. She pays taxes. She shouldnt be able to own a gun?

PS shes Japanese. Culturally, she is more honest and lawabiding...and less violent...than we are. So are most Asians, who statistically have the lowest level of criminality in the US.

WildgottohitthephotoprogrambebacklaterAlaska
 
I am under the impression that if they had intended for the Second Amendment to limit the US from infringing on the RKBA of foreigners on our soil, then they would have used the term "person" instead of "the people". I seem to recall reading in the congressional record that the Fifth Amendment says "no person shall" because it was intended to apply to foreigners ... I believe it was visiting royalty that was specifically mentioned. And what is that SCOTUS case that people hold up to support the idea that "the people" means the same thing in every instance? I think that case says something about this.
 
PS shes Japanese. Culturally, she is more honest and lawabiding...and less violent...than we are. So are most Asians, who statistically have the lowest level of criminality in the US.
Click to expand...

I have an enormous problem with your indictment of Western Civilization or America. Low levels of criminality? Less violent? Can we honestly take China, the greatest state murderer of the 21st century, as less violent? (More of her own people than Hitler). Or Japan, with her cowardly suprise attack at Pearl Harbor, and her kamikaze bombers as honest?

I feel that your "PS" has no place on this board. (Your first sentence was all that was necessary, and a fine point. Vague generalities about "most asians" being "more honest" are out of place and offensive).

That said, I agree. My SO is an immigrant as was one of my parents. If they are in good legal standing, I believe they should be welcomed into the responsibility of gun ownership. I can see making them wait for a period of time within the United States, living without a criminal record for a year or two, but beyond that would be silly and needless.
 
Last edited:
I have an enormous problem with your indictment of Western Civilization or America. Low levels of criminality? Less violent? Can we honestly take China, the greatest state murderer of the 21st century, as less violent? (More of her own people than Hitler). Or Japan, with her cowardly suprise attack at Pearl Harbor, and her kamikaze bombers as honest?
Click to expand...

Sand Creek. Wounded Knee. The Phillipines. Tokyo. Hiroshima. Dresden. Mai Lai.

Let ye who is without sin cast the first stone.

Statistical point. Lowest levels of criminality in the US are Asian. No argument, neh, other than a vague ad hominem?

PS..."cowardly surprise attack?" Too bad this Board is limited to gun related subjects Id be happy to debate that one ;)

WildtgifAlaska
 
Isn't it great how the right to keep and bear arms is "God-given" and "inalienable" one minute, and entirely dependent on a wholly man-made distinction like citizenship the next?
 
Statistical point. Lowest levels of criminality in the US are Asian. No argument, neh, other than a vague ad hominem?
Click to expand...

Sir, you constantly accuse people of "veiled" or "vague" ad hominems. I fail to see mine. Enlighten me, because I have no idea where I could have insulted you, lest you believe calling Pearl Harbor a cowardly attack is an attack on your wife, who likely wasn't even born by then. (In that case, someone calling Wounded Knee a cowardly slaughter would contain a "veiled insult" to me). You best take up your own advice concerning a first stone, and your own veiled insults toward American society and Western Civilization.

I failed to see the pertinence of your "statistical point", and viewed it as a non sequitur. Should we start looking at groups, seeing their crime levels, and issuing guns and carry licenses to them based on their historical levels of crime? Shall we start looking at the race and ethinicty of people before we issue them a license? If you think so, then your point was pertinent. If not, it was uncalled for.

ULTIMATELY, we must have guns and carry licenses be color blind. We cannot discriminate based on culture or race as your post seemed to suggest (we cannot take their "cultural docility" or "friendliness" or "honesty" or whatever you want into account). We can only take people as individuals. If your wife is honest and law abiding, say so. Don't talk about her race and nationality.

As a postscript, it is silly to bring up your SO in a very controversial racial/cultural context and then start accusing people with insults when they disagree with your cultural take.
 
I don't see how every single argument for gun ownership doesn't apply to permanent legal residents.
Click to expand...

I agree. However, I think the argument is that society as a whole is created by a social contract. I agree to recognize your rights, you agree to recognize mine, and we organize society based on mutual agreement. Entry in this mutual agreement is what being a citizen represents. You are endowed with important responsbilities as a citizen. (Jury duty, serving as a witness, and most importantly registering for the draft).

For these responsbilities, you gain entry into the society, and the rights it grants to members. Permanent Residents have not taken up the burden of these responsibilites. Similarly, if they are not, for example, willing to die to defend their country, the argument goes, they do not deserve the rights that are guaranteed by that country.

The fundamental question is whether or not we want to allow free riders. They gain the rights that citizens must be willing to die to protect, while not having to be willing themselves. Some believe that we should not allow such free riders, and they thus shouldn't have the RKBA, because they haven't taken up the responsbility to protect it from the enemies of the United States.
 
Whoa there, junkpile! You may not be aware of this fact, but foreign nationals resident in the US (male ones aged 18-25, that is) are required to register with the Selective Service System and may be drafted (should the draft ever be reinstated). Foreign nationals can, and do, enlist in the United States armed forces, not least because doing so is a point in one's favor when applying for US citizenship. You don't have to be a citizen to fight for this country.

(I myself am exempt because I already performed military service in the armed forces of an allied nation. Also, I'm 36.)
 
I did actually learn that recently at an Army boot camp graduation event. 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 agree it a weak point in America today, and as I've said, I don't think PR's should be denied these rights. I'm reiterating what I believe to be the point of people who do think that--that there is a difference in the responsibilities, or the theoretical allegiances that a citizen owes that a PR does not. (Now that PR's can be charged with Treason, I think that distinction has grown weak).
 
By All Means

The right to protect themselves and their families? Certainly as long as they are either born here, hold that right hand up and are given American Citizenship, and are or have served in the US Armed Forces honorably.

The who sneak in, or are against everything the US (used to) Stands for should have the same rights as Mexico and the other Nations give Americans when living abroad in their jurisdictions. Thats Fair.
 
I am under the impression that if they had intended for the Second Amendment to limit the US from infringing on the RKBA of foreigners on our soil, then they would have used the term "person" instead of "the people". I seem to recall reading in the congressional record that the Fifth Amendment says "no person shall" because it was intended to apply to foreigners ... I believe it was visiting royalty that was specifically mentioned. And what is that SCOTUS case that people hold up to support the idea that "the people" means the same thing in every instance? I think that case says something about this.
Click to expand...

Hugh,

The term "the people" and "a person" are simply plural and singular forms of the same term and distinguishable from "citizen". The "people" is more inclusive. I believe the test is something on the order of having a significant attachment to the community and living within U.S. territory. Thus even illegal aliens living within these United States are part of "the people" while those individuals who are just visiting from other nations are not. Some of our more creative justices, Justice Breyer for instance, have argued that "the people" include all those under our jurisdiction which would include such broad classes of people as prisoners of war captured and held in foreign lands, but I do not understand this to be the prevailing view of the court.

Mr. Madison wrote to Mr. Jefferson in October of 1788 concerning the addition of a bill of rights to the United States Constitution.
My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be included in the enumeration. At the same time I have never thought the omission a material defect, nor been anxious to supply it even by subsequent amendment, for any other reason than that it is anxiously desired by others. . . . I have not viewed it in an important light — 1. because I conceive that in a certain degree, though not in the extent argued by Mr. Wilson, the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained in the requisite latitude. ...
Click to expand...

Federal powers are specifically enumerated, the federal Constitution is a limited grant of power, while the various state constitutions are a general grant of power. Madison did not perceive a need for a federal bill of rights as the federal government, unlike the states, lacked any power to regulate or infringe our rights. However, the states governments, possessing a general grant of power, needed to be restrained by a bill of rights such as that adopted by Virginia in June of 1776.

Anti-federalists, including such notable people as Patrick Henry, opposed the ratification of the federal Constitution and the question was long in doubt in more then half the states. In the end, a number of states agreed to ratification if a bill of rights was to be included. This was the Massachusetts compromise and these states provided instructions as to what they wanted included in a federal bill of rights.

The point is only this, that the federal bill of rights did not create our rights, it only codified our rights within the federal Constitution. We do not have the right to the liberty of speech because of the first Amendment, the first Amendment exists because we have a natural or unalienable right to free speech and many states refused to ratify the Constitution without the promise of a bill of rights. We possessed these unalienable rights, including the right to self defense, before there existed any American citizens, before there was a United States with a federal Constitution.

I can understand, especially in this time of massive illegal immigration, how some might desire to limit our unalienable rights to only those who are citizens, but I can not agree with such a position. If we hold our right to be a product of a document, even our Constitution, instead of a natural possession of all men, then our rights become malleable and some will seek to deny us our right, to practice a tyranny over our lives. Those who would deny people who are not citizens the right to arms are necessarily also denying that the right to arms is a natural or unalienable right. Those in the gun-control faction would certainly agree with that position. I will not.

Best Regards,
Richard
 
Well said, Mr. Hanson. When the law, or when the Constitution, comes up against inalienable rights, it is not those rights that crack or waver, but only the legitimacy of that law, that Constitution, that government. No contract that violates anyone's rights is valid.

We indict our own country when we deny the ability to defend themselves against those who would wrongly harm them from anyone, be they a minority, an alien (or illegal alien!), or a white male protestant.

On a practical political point, I think we also harm the political allies of guns, as there are potential recruits that we are losing for no good reason.
 
You best take up your own advice concerning a first stone, and your own veiled insults toward American society and Western Civilization.
Click to expand...

Veiled insults? Hell, I unveil them...American society is undoubtedly the most VOILENT of the "western" societies in terms of personal and social, vis a vis, governmental conduct.. Reasons, historical or otherwise, do not change that basic fact.

Statistically, a white american, hispanic american or african american is more likely to engage in criminal conduct than an asian american. Period. For what stats are worth.

As to the rest you need to reread my posts and place them in context with the overall discussion.

PS..since I am not familair with your personal philosophy, I would assume that if you feel PRs shouldnt be allowed to own guns, you extend that prohibition to felons who have served their sentences? Or is it pick and choose.

Wild3hourstofreedomAlaska
 
Is there a reason that she can't become a citizen ?
Click to expand...

Sure...me.:)

FWIW, if she could keep dual citizenship I wouldnt object. But I am significantly older (20+years) than she is, a smoker, a drinker, a partyer....as much as she is now "American", if she is a citizen she loses Jap citizenship....I go to the big gun range in the sky tommorrow that removes options for her. Plus, a Japanese passport in this modern world is "gold". When we have traveled outside the US and returned, she passes through the non citizen line with that Passport faster than I can clear as a citizen. :)

No one screws with the Japanese, too many Toyotas and Sonys :)

WildvodkatonighthoorayAlaska
 
Veiled insults? Hell, I unveil them...American society is undoubtedly the most VOILENT of the "western" societies in terms of personal and social, vis a vis, governmental conduct..
Click to expand...

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.

Statistically, a white american, hispanic american or african american is more likely to engage in criminal conduct than an asian american. Period. For what stats are worth.
Click to expand...
"For what stats are worth". (Which is nothing, my point that remains unresponded to.) Unless that was a implicit agreement that we should judge people's ability to own guns based on their status as Asian-Americans, as blacks, etc. We can't do it, entirely unamerican, and in all likelihood unconstitutional (as I've said in other posts, discrimination based on alienage runs up against "strict scrutiny" constitutionally, which means "narrowly tailored" "compelling state interest" and "least restrictive means"). The case for discrimination based on alienage, be it positive (look more positively at Asian Americans when it comes to gun rights) or negative (look negatively to immigrants) fits nearly neither of those "means" criterion.

PS..since I am not familair with your personal philosophy, I would assume that if you feel PRs shouldnt be allowed to own guns, you extend that prohibition to felons who have served their sentences? Or is it pick and choose.
Click to expand...
I think this was directed at me. If it was, then read my original response, where I was offended by your statements vis a vis Western Society, or my post at 5:08, or my latest post (other than this). I...don't believe that PRs shouldn't be allowed to own guns.

PRs should be able to own firearms, but we can't say one racial group is more or less violent as a reason to give them guns, as was suggested by the (paraphrase!) "they're more honest and less violent, why shouldn't we give them guns" post. This is a politically infeasible position for gun rights in any society.
 
When we have traveled outside the US and returned, she passes through the non citizen line with that Passport faster than I can clear as a citizen.
Click to expand...

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.

you extend that prohibition to felons who have served their sentences
Click to expand...
Absolutely. If your a convicted felon sorry. You get nothing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top