"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[Henry]

The noncitizen has the right to keep and bear arms. The state infringes upon and suppresses that right. The right, nonetheless, exists.

 

[hornadylnl]

The noncitizen has the right to keep and bear arms. The state infringes upon and suppresses that right. The right, nonetheless, exists.

But the pro torture crowd claims that non citizens don't have the right to not be tortured. But on the other hands, our rights are God given. Did God only give Americans rights?

 

[Henry]

But the pro torture crowd claims that non citizens don't have the right to not be tortured. But on the other hands, our rights are God given. Did God only give Americans rights?

No. Pretty sure he was endowing folks with natural rights long before there was an America.

 

[hornadylnl]

No. Pretty sure he was endowing folks with natural rights long before there was an America.

I believe so too. But why is it that the 'Murica crowd argues that rights only apply to American citizens out of one side of their mouths while saying that rights aren't granted by the the U.S. government out of the other?

 

[Henry]

I believe so too. But why is it that the 'Murica crowd argues that rights only apply to American citizens out of one side of their mouths while saying that rights aren't granted by the the U.S. government out of the other?

Indoctrination.

 

[slowG]

America had rights at one time. Sometimes our rights feel more like illusions. We all learn to tip toe around crap just to keep what is rightfully ours.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

I believe so too. But why is it that the 'Murica crowd argues that rights only apply to American citizens out of one side of their mouths while saying that rights aren't granted by the the U.S. government out of the other?

I don't necessarily disagree, sir - but for the sake of discussion: I think that we both would agree in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" principle. And taking someone's life is the ultimate and final act - that should have have the most safeguards. While repugnant - torture is not forever. But Death is. So if someone declares America to be his enemy, takes up arms and fights - at what point do we consider him enough of an enemy to make it acceptable to terminate his life? And why is torture somehow worse that killing the poor sod?

 

[hornadylnl]

I don't necessarily disagree, sir - but for the sake of discussion: I think that we both would agree in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" principle. And taking someone's life is the ultimate and final act - that should have have the most safeguards. While repugnant - torture is not forever. But Death is. So if someone declares America to be his enemy, takes up arms and fights - at what point do we consider him enough of an enemy to make it acceptable to terminate his life? And why is torture somehow worse that killing the poor sod?

By allowing a line to be drawn in the sand, how do you prevent it from being moved? Why draw it between citizen and non? And by man drawing that line, are they not usurping God's authority to determine rights?

 

[Kutnupe14]

It's OK.
You're young so there's still time.

Time for what? If I think youre saying, what I think youre saying, Im a practicing Baptist.

 

[olhorseman]

I don't necessarily disagree, sir - but for the sake of discussion: I think that we both would agree in the "your right to swing your fist ends at my nose" principle. And taking someone's life is the ultimate and final act - that should have have the most safeguards. While repugnant - torture is not forever. But Death is. So if someone declares America to be his enemy, takes up arms and fights - at what point do we consider him enough of an enemy to make it acceptable to terminate his life? And why is torture somehow worse that killing the poor sod?

Because you re-experience every minute of the torture for every minute you are alive, death is the only end to the torture.

 

[Kutnupe14]

How is the right to bear arms endowed by our creator but only to those born within our borders?

How is the right of freedom of movement endowed by our creator, but only applies if you're not trying to cross the US border?

 

[cobber]

Well, tell me what you CAN'T do, cite the era you COULD do it, and I bet you'll that in that era a lot of people were less free.

We can't say, until we read the law... 'collective' freedom? There's an interesting concept.

http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/faq/non-immgrant-aliens-2.pdf

A legal alien has the right to purchase firearms according to Federal law. Indiana allows the possession and carry of long guns within the state without a license provided the person is not prohibited from owning them.

A legal alien does not qualify for a handgun license in Indiana. That would not prevent them from bearing a handgun in their home, place of business or from transporting it in a vehicle provided it is unloaded, secured in a case and not readily accessible.

What is a 'legal alien'? A permanent resident (not naturalized) can receive a LTCH. Are you referring to a person of foreign origin who is here lawfully, but only on a short-term visa?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

By allowing a line to be drawn in the sand, how do you prevent it from being moved? Why draw it between citizen and non? And by man drawing that line, are they not usurping God's authority to determine rights?

I don't wish to get into God's authority and all of that. (too close to the banhammer for my liking...). I believe that all of us have inalienable natural rights given to us by virtue of our existence. Among those is the right to exist. Each of us has that right. BUT if you take up arms against me - you threaten my right to exist. As such, I have the right to take whatever steps are necessary and prudent to protect myself. Including killing , in the extreme example. Self defense shootings are great examples of this in real life.

My question - and it IS a question (haven't found a great answer myself yet), is this. If I am willing to kill a person to defend myself or my family - how is the use of force to extract information (i.e. torture) any worse? At least in that case I have the courtesy to leave my enemy alive.



Why draw a line between citizen and non?

You realize that the logical conclusion of your hypothetical would be zero borders ANYWHERE, right? While that may be an ideal, in a John Lennon, utopian, - "Imagine" sort of way... it ignores the fact that people have the tendency to join into groups based on language , culture , etc. And stake out territory accordingly. At that point - there necessarily are differences between "your" people and "my" people. I'm not saying that your ideal isn't great. But it ignores many realities on the ground.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Because you re-experience every minute of the torture for every minute you are alive, death is the only end to the torture.

Fair point - and I'm asking this open mindedly, as I hope my posts have shown. So we have the Geneva Convention for how humanely we must kill people when they wish to harm us.

That makes us _civilized_... ok I can see that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I don't wish to get into God's authority and all of that. (too close to the banhammer for my liking...). I believe that all of us have inalienable natural rights given to us by virtue of our existence. Among those is the right to exist. Each of us has that right. BUT if you take up arms against me - you threaten my right to exist. As such, I have the right to take whatever steps are necessary and prudent to protect myself. Including killing , in the extreme example. Self defense shootings are great examples of this in real life.

My question - and it IS a question (haven't found a great answer myself yet), is this. If I am willing to kill a person to defend myself or my family - how is the use of force to extract information (i.e. torture) any worse? At least in that case I have the courtesy to leave my enemy alive.



Why draw a line between citizen and non?

You realize that the logical conclusion of your hypothetical would be zero borders ANYWHERE, right? While that may be an ideal, in a John Lennon, utopian, - "Imagine" sort of way... it ignores the fact that people have the tendency to join into groups based on language , culture , etc. And stake out territory accordingly. At that point - there necessarily are differences between "your" people and "my" people. I'm not saying that your ideal isn't great. But it ignores many realities on the ground.

Because if rights were unalienable, there would be no citizens of various countries, only citizens of the planet.

 

[Denny347]

Because if rights were unalienable, there would be no citizens of various countries, only citizens of the planet.

Ah, good point. I believe them to be inalienable and we are citizens (if you can use the term) of humanity. We should treat those as we want to be treated (bit of a cliche). We CANNOT hold these rights dear while at the same time refusing to recognize them in others. We retain our principles regardless how barbaric others treat us. Is that not how a person is judged?

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Ah, good point. I believe them to be inalienable and we are citizens (if you can use the term) of humanity. We should treat those as we want to be treated (bit of a cliche). We CANNOT hold these rights dear while at the same time refusing to recognize them in others. We retain our principles regardless how barbaric others treat us. Is that not how a person is judged?

By whom?

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Denny -

I'm inclined to believe that you have about got the proper balance there. On one hand - we live in a world of borders, territories, and groups. We cannot escape that to the John Lennon-ish utopia. It doesn't exist.

At the same time - whatever rights we hold to be inalienable - we must recognize for all people. Some rights (think Voting) are reserved for those who have made the commitment and paid the price to be a citizen of the nation in question. But the basic human rights/freedoms ought to be recognized and protected by us within the sphere of our influence (basically our borders). We can't control what others (e.g Mexico, Russia, DogCrapistan, wherever do within their borders) They have the right to self governance after all.

Note that this does NOT mean an open border free for all, as some around here have advocated. It DOES mean that we will not stoop to the level of abandoning the basic human rights that we believe as a society to be inalienable. And there's room underneath that umbrella for requiring ORDERLY immigration to this country.

All this said, in every war, and every conflict there are barbarities committed BY ALL SIDES that should cause shame and grief. The Japanese did things to the Koreans and Chinese in WW II that would have made Hitler blush. While we were not as barbaric about it, still things happen. It does cause me great concern when we hear people openly clamoring for torture. What today is a "tool to be used by our side" tomorrow is "what is used on us".

 

[printcraft]

Both of these are key conservative talking points. The bill of rights doesn't grant us rights, it only confirms rights given ny our creator. Those same rights don't apply to non citizens here or abroad. how does a conservative square those 2 beliefs?

Well, if you want to change the world and give them a bill or rights like America pick up that rifle and spread some democracy.

 

[Henry]

"Unalienable" not "Inalienable"