FAL-schutter
New member
junkpile said:
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.
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?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 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.