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

[Bunnykid68]

WOW...

Really let us invoke the Solemness of 9-11 to win my Argument...


Those 19 Persons who slipped through the Crack were not a Failure of the Visa Program, they were a Failure of Law Enforcement mainly. They were operating on Expired Student Visas, thereby being Illegal Immigrants. So, once again between the Inability of all the Federal LEAs to communicate, and the inability of Local LEA to detain, and begin the deportation process of Illegal Immigrants Our Immigration System was exploited by Trained Agents of a Combatant Enemy infiltrated Our Borders and Learned from Us how to Harm Us...

So where is the System truly broken at?!

And they did all of that without guns

 

[steve666]

My answer is yes, as long as they are here legally they should have the same right to defend themselves. The police are certainly no more likely to provide them with protection than they are with citizens. As far as I'm concerned, if they are not here legally then the only right they have is to leave immediately!!!

 

[Kutnupe14]

Unalienable rights do not exist? I believe our Founders and Framers, and the philosophers on whose experience and thoughts and wisdom they drew, would differ with you.

You have a right to your life. Incumbent upon you, then, is the duty to defend that life, and therefore, the RKBA applies to that defense. Did they deny some of those rights to others? Yes, sadly, they did, but a right denied does not simply disappear, any more than a person's humanity is not lost solely by someone denying it. You seem to be advocating "might makes right"... that is, that the strongest among us have the right to take from anyone else whatever they wish, solely because of their physical strength. I hope you never have to go on the witness stand with that attitude.

The final analysis? The Founders were not perfect, no, but they were far wiser than most of us today.

Even with their failings, I'll continue to believe what they set down for us rather than "Kutnupe's Law".

Blessings,
Bill

I am certainly NOT advocating "might makes right," I am simply illustrating how it is, not how it should be. I challenge you to find a system of govt, heck, or anything in nature where that doesnt apply.

Further, I would ask you where natural law comes from originally.

 

[Kutnupe14]

WOW...

Really let us invoke the Solemness of 9-11 to win my Argument...


Those 19 Persons who slipped through the Crack were not a Failure of the Visa Program, they were a Failure of Law Enforcement mainly. They were operating on Expired Student Visas, thereby being Illegal Immigrants. So, once again between the Inability of all the Federal LEAs to communicate, and the inability of Local LEA to detain, and begin the deportation process of Illegal Immigrants Our Immigration System was exploited by Trained Agents of a Combatant Enemy infiltrated Our Borders and Learned from Us how to Harm Us...

So where is the System truly broken at?!

There's nothing funny about it, you talked about how thorough background checks are, and I easily refuted with one universally well-know instance. Solemn yes, but it brings home the point that a group of foreign nations committed THE most heinous crime in our nation's history. I can give others if you wish.

Anyways, thanks for another talking point. Your contention is that if a foreign national is here legally, they should be afforded 2nd Amendment rights. And I would assume that anyone who is here illegally, most would categorize as a criminal. Ok, let's run with that. Each year, over 300,000 foreign nationals overstay their visas. That's an extra 300,000 "criminals" who at one time or another (based on your logic) should have had the privilege of "bearing arms," afforded to them. That doesn't make me warm and fuzzy.

For Americans, the 2nd Amendment is a "right," for everybody else, it's a "privilege."

Now, I have no problem with you citing the failures of LE in corralling these "criminals," none at all. However, the tools are not available for LE to take adequate action. In addition to servicing the 300M Americans of the nation, they are expected to service another 300,000 "criminals" yearly on top of that? Even if 0.5% of that, again yearly, number committed crimes, it would still be a herculean task in investigating and bringing these persons to justice. I don't like the idea of 300,000 extra criminals having the opportunity to legally possess firearms, during their "legal" stay.

Interesting fact: The US has over 5M foreign nations, currently in the nation, that entered the country legally.

 

[jbombelli]

The only rights afforded solely to citizens are the rights to be here, to vote and to run for office. Everything else, as far as I am concerned, is universal in its applicability.

 

[ATM]

...For Americans, the 2nd Amendment is a "right," for everybody else, it's a "privilege." ...

Not for this American.

The RKBA the 2A references is not established by it at all.

It's this basic definition of yours that is incorrect.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I am certainly NOT advocating "might makes right," I am simply illustrating how it is, not how it should be. I challenge you to find a system of govt, heck, or anything in nature where that doesnt apply.

Further, I would ask you where natural law comes from originally.

I challenge you to prove your own existence. I can refuse to accept any fact I want to make this task impossible for you, nonetheless, there you are.

Kutnupe, if we go right back to the Declaration, the initial document on which our nation is based, we find that our Founders said, "We hold these truths to be self-evident. Were they saying that it was their belief? Perhaps. The thing is, patriotic Americans have shared that belief ever since. That's one of the things that ties us together as a nation, much as basic tenets tie members of a religion together. It is a shared American belief that people have rights and that those rights are theirs not by an act of government, which we Americans created, but by an act of our Creator, by whatever name you might know Him. Do you have a right to your life? That is, if I were to choose to track you down, find you, and kill you, should that act be punished? If you have no right to that life, the answer is no. I should be free to kill you at any time I might so choose. However, the penal codes, again, created by Americans, define that as a crime...why? If you have no right to that life, why can I not take it?

(note for those that miss the painfully obvious: I have no intention nor plan to do harm to Kutnupe, the example is solely illustrative.)

Just because a system has not perfectly carried out our Founders' shared intent does not mean that the goal is invalid; You're saying "how it is", but you're doing so in a manner that lauds it, as if it were a good thing.

You say that people born here are in some way superior to or are somehow deserving of more rights than people born elsewhere. Why? The accident of their parentage somehow enshrines those born within our borders with more rights? What is the differentiation? How can that be qualified and quantified so we can better evaluate it? Does this apply to infants born here to women who crossed the border illegally, or is the child held to blame and penalized for the actions of his parent over which he had no control?

Finally, you asked the source of natural law. In doing so, you remind me of the late George Carlin, discussing the "sanctity of life" and claiming "", because only the living seem to think it sacred. Perhaps natural law comes from nature, perhaps from God Himself, but if the latter, that discussion is beyond the scope of this board. I will say that if you choose not to believe in Him, I support your right to make that choice (see what I did there?) but for your sake, you better be right.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Rather than kicking Kutnupe some more (a passtime I usually endorse), would Bill of Rights or ATM please address my objections regarding citizenship, voting, firearms, etc?

 

[Bill of Rights]

Rather than kicking Kutnupe some more (a passtime I usually endorse), would Bill of Rights or ATM please address my objections regarding citizenship, voting, firearms, etc?

Sorry TBE. I saw your post on "if they can vote, they need to be armed. If they are armed, they need the vote."

There are lots of people I don't want to see be armed, however, I do not support gov't action to disarm them; It's just my preference.

Re: the vote: If someone is on the fast track to citizenship, I think they can wait a while to vote, but I think that everyone (the free, anyway) has the right to be armed for his/her own defense. I see your point, but I can't agree with it there. Voting is a privilege of citizenship.

Hope that helps!
Blessings,
Bill

 

[T.Lex]

Ok. I bailed from this thread when it got un-interesting, so here's my effort - as controversial as it may be - to make it more interesting.

As a historical matter, did American slaves have a "natural right" (however you want to define that) to arm themselves? With guns or machetes? They were not "citizens," as that term was defined by the applicable laws.

And, in case anyone is wondering, I have a follow-up question.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Ok. I bailed from this thread when it got un-interesting, so here's my effort - as controversial as it may be - to make it more interesting.

As a historical matter, did American slaves have a "natural right" (however you want to define that) to arm themselves? With guns or machetes? They were not "citizens," as that term was defined by the applicable laws.

And, in case anyone is wondering, I have a follow-up question.

Unfortunately, and to our national shame, slaves were not considered "persons"; they were property, under law, and as property they had no "rights." Was this a contradiction of the philosophy under which this country was founded? You betcha. Did it get corrected, eventually, yes, after an argument that cost about 500,000 lives on both sides. We've striven mightily as a nation and as the people to right that wrong.

What is your followup question?

 

[Bunnykid68]

Ok. I bailed from this thread when it got un-interesting, so here's my effort - as controversial as it may be - to make it more interesting.

As a historical matter, did American slaves have a "natural right" (however you want to define that) to arm themselves? With guns or machetes? They were not "citizens," as that term was defined by the applicable laws.

And, in case anyone is wondering, I have a follow-up question.

Yes, they had natural rights granted to them by the Creator.
They were denied everyone of those rights though.

 

[bingley]

WOW...
Those 19 Persons who slipped through the Crack were not a Failure of the Visa Program, they were a Failure of Law Enforcement mainly. They were operating on Expired Student Visas, thereby being Illegal Immigrants. So, once again between the Inability of all the Federal LEAs to communicate, and the inability of Local LEA to detain, and begin the deportation process of Illegal Immigrants Our Immigration System was exploited by Trained Agents of a Combatant Enemy infiltrated Our Borders and Learned from Us how to Harm Us...

This reminded of something. Around half a year after 911, a Nepalese student was arrested while boarding a flight for having knives in his bags. He had graduated shortly before and his student visa had expired. He was on a final trip around the country to see his friends in a big city (Chicago?) before returning to Nepal, and wanted to give them knives for self-protection. Naturally there was a lot of media panic about this. But then I read an article which made me think this expired student visa business wasn't such a big deal. The INS used to give a grace period of 90 days after the expiration date for the international students to pack up, say goodbye, and move out. Some of them have established roots in the US. Some have bought cars and even property, so 90 days seemed reasonable.

Of course, in the aftermath of 911 this seemed like such a terrible thing, even though for the vast majority of international students, such a policy was a benefit, and it didn't cost us anything. I think there was some talk of making the international students go to the airport and leave the country on the day of their graduation. I don't know whether that ever happened. I hope it didn't. It seemed like paranoia, and it would look really bad for us.

Anyway, what I want to say about the whole 911 terrorists on expired student visas thing is that bad guys can't be expected to follow the law. Subjecting all our guests to the third degree isn't going to make good guys out of terrorists. You'll just make life harder for the law-abiding citizens or guests, you know, like the TSA taking away my bottle of water, or putting this disabled old lady and her wheelchair through a thorough screening (all the passengers stood around shaking their heads).

Most of this at the end is about image control in the media and covering your behind in politics. "We LET these terrorists stay in this country without a valid visa?" "We LET this guy buy a gun and then he uses it to rob someone?" After expressing such outrage, politicians come out swinging about cracking down on "loopholes," etc. In truth if the 911 terrorists had no choice but to get valid visas for their duration of stay, they would have gotten it somehow. If a bad guy needed to rob someone, he would have figured out a way to do it even if he could not get a gun legally.

Alright, enough from my soapbox. Just my humble two cents.

Da Bing

 

[bingley]

Unalienable rights do not exist? I believe our Founders and Framers, and the philosophers on whose experience and thoughts and wisdom they drew, would differ with you.

...

Even with their failings, I'll continue to believe what they set down for us rather than "Kutnupe's Law".

It sounds like Kutnupe basically wants to return to the Middle Ages, before the Enlightenment thinkers formulated key ideas that served as the foundation of our democracy. He's entitled to have his personal view, I guess, and that view is what Marcellus Wallace meant in Pulp Fiction by "getting medieval." Or, jump forward to the 20th century, Mao Zedong, one of the worst mass murderers of the world, said "power grows out of the barrel of a handgun." Supposedly he said handgun, not just gun, because that's the weapon you can execute your political opponents with. Neither the Middle Ages nor communism are appealing to me. I prefer to think that there is such a thing as morality, and that we can set up a society that respects morality.

What I really want to ask Kutnupe is, with this view, do you expect basic legal protections when you go to another country? Will you accept violations of your human rights as a matter of course? I'm also not sure what alternative legal processes Kutnupe proposes for the various guests who visit our country, ranging from tourists to immigrants.

Da Bing

 

[The Bubba Effect]

Sorry TBE. I saw your post on "if they can vote, they need to be armed. If they are armed, they need the vote."

There are lots of people I don't want to see be armed, however, I do not support gov't action to disarm them; It's just my preference.

Re: the vote: If someone is on the fast track to citizenship, I think they can wait a while to vote, but I think that everyone (the free, anyway) has the right to be armed for his/her own defense. I see your point, but I can't agree with it there. Voting is a privilege of citizenship.

Hope that helps!
Blessings,
Bill

Thank you for your input.

After consideration, I would like to modify my position. I do think that it should be legal for foreign nationals to own & carry, but on a case by case basis. I do not believe that their right to bear arms is on the same fundamental basis as the right of the citizen. The host holding a superior basket of rights than the guest.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Thank you for your input.

After consideration, I would like to modify my position. I do think that it should be legal for foreign nationals to own & carry, but on a case by case basis. I do not believe that their right to bear arms is on the same fundamental basis as the right of the citizen. The host holding a superior basket of rights than the guest.

That's been my original position all along.

 

[Kutnupe14]

It sounds like Kutnupe basically wants to return to the Middle Ages, before the Enlightenment thinkers formulated key ideas that served as the foundation of our democracy. He's entitled to have his personal view, I guess, and that view is what Marcellus Wallace meant in Pulp Fiction by "getting medieval." Or, jump forward to the 20th century, Mao Zedong, one of the worst mass murderers of the world, said "power grows out of the barrel of a handgun." Supposedly he said handgun, not just gun, because that's the weapon you can execute your political opponents with. Neither the Middle Ages nor communism are appealing to me. I prefer to think that there is such a thing as morality, and that we can set up a society that respects morality.

What I really want to ask Kutnupe is, with this view, do you expect basic legal protections when you go to another country? Will you accept violations of your human rights as a matter of course? I'm also not sure what alternative legal processes Kutnupe proposes for the various guests who visit our country, ranging from tourists to immigrants.

Da Bing

As a guy who has been to many foreign countries, I certainly do not expect basic legal protections, because simply put the protections we have here, you cannot assume you have there. Try telling the Polizei, you dont consent to a search and may end up naked next to a tree in the Teirgarden.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Unfortunately, and to our national shame, slaves were not considered "persons"; they were property, under law, and as property they had no "rights." Was this a contradiction of the philosophy under which this country was founded? You betcha. Did it get corrected, eventually, yes, after an argument that cost about 500,000 lives on both sides. We've striven mightily as a nation and as the people to right that wrong.

What is your followup question?

Yes, they had natural rights granted to them by the Creator.
They were denied everyone of those rights though.

and a person that would endorse the denial of natural rights is.... what?

 

[Bill of Rights]

and a person that would endorse the denial of natural rights is.... what?

Wrong. (about that)

 

[Bill of Rights]

WOW...

Really let us invoke the Solemness of 9-11 to win my Argument...


Those 19 Persons who slipped through the Crack were not a Failure of the Visa Program, they were a Failure of Law Enforcement mainly. They were operating on Expired Student Visas, thereby being Illegal Immigrants. So, once again between the Inability of all the Federal LEAs to communicate, and the inability of Local LEA to detain, and begin the deportation process of Illegal Immigrants Our Immigration System was exploited by Trained Agents of a Combatant Enemy infiltrated Our Borders and Learned from Us how to Harm Us...

So where is the System truly broken at?!

This reminded of something. Around half a year after 911, a Nepalese student was arrested while boarding a flight for having knives in his bags. He had graduated shortly before and his student visa had expired. He was on a final trip around the country to see his friends in a big city (Chicago?) before returning to Nepal, and wanted to give them knives for self-protection. Naturally there was a lot of media panic about this. But then I read an article which made me think this expired student visa business wasn't such a big deal. The INS used to give a grace period of 90 days after the expiration date for the international students to pack up, say goodbye, and move out. Some of them have established roots in the US. Some have bought cars and even property, so 90 days seemed reasonable.

Of course, in the aftermath of 911 this seemed like such a terrible thing, even though for the vast majority of international students, such a policy was a benefit, and it didn't cost us anything. I think there was some talk of making the international students go to the airport and leave the country on the day of their graduation. I don't know whether that ever happened. I hope it didn't. It seemed like paranoia, and it would look really bad for us.

Anyway, what I want to say about the whole 911 terrorists on expired student visas thing is that bad guys can't be expected to follow the law. Subjecting all our guests to the third degree isn't going to make good guys out of terrorists. You'll just make life harder for the law-abiding citizens or guests, you know, like the TSA taking away my bottle of water, or putting this disabled old lady and her wheelchair through a thorough screening (all the passengers stood around shaking their heads).

Most of this at the end is about image control in the media and covering your behind in politics. "We LET these terrorists stay in this country without a valid visa?" "We LET this guy buy a gun and then he uses it to rob someone?" After expressing such outrage, politicians come out swinging about cracking down on "loopholes," etc. In truth if the 911 terrorists had no choice but to get valid visas for their duration of stay, they would have gotten it somehow. If a bad guy needed to rob someone, he would have figured out a way to do it even if he could not get a gun legally.

Alright, enough from my soapbox. Just my humble two cents.

Da Bing

I meant to address this before, and thanks Bingley, for reminding me of Jeremy's post: The 9/11 terrorists didn't slip through any cracks. They were paying passengers on a flight. They were carrying objects that were mere tools that they used to deadly effect. As Flight 93 shows, they could have been overcome, had the other passengers had the mindset to risk the cut that a razor blade can deliver at close range and jumped to capture them. As humans, we're wired to have an almost atavistic fear of being cut, and the terrorists used that to their advantage. Had passengers on each of the planes been able to overcome that fear (nigh-impossible, certainly, without benefit of hindsight), 9/11 would be just another day, and the "Patriot Act" and all the other abuses since that day, 10 years ago, would never have happened.

Those terrorists did not have any prohibited item on them. I have said before, in a paraquote from Tom Clancy, that had the terrorists been captured, bound, placed in seats on the plane and their throats cut, their bodies dumped on the tarmac on arrival as a message, we would quickly see an end to terrorism, certainly of airplane hijackings. Is it brutal and disgusting? Absolutely. Cold and heartless? Certainly. Effective? We can only speculate, but if we were to add "smear them with bacon grease" to the response, I cannot imagine many of the small subset of Muslims who would do this would be willing to risk their immortal souls.

Thank you for your input.

After consideration, I would like to modify my position. I do think that it should be legal for foreign nationals to own & carry, but on a case by case basis. I do not believe that their right to bear arms is on the same fundamental basis as the right of the citizen. The host holding a superior basket of rights than the guest.

That's been my original position all along.

Perhaps so. The fact is, though, that the standard under which this nation was founded was that none have "more rights" than any other. I respect the fact that everyone has opinions. The ones stated here contradict the Founders. Admittedly, as I said to Kutnupe in re: slavery, our Founders' behaviors individually were sometimes wrong, but their basic philosophy, as a group, was spot on. The one stated above seems to be more along the lines of Orwell's Animal Farm, in which some are more equal than others, the "others" being the more privileged.

I can't countenance that, but I can respect you holding your views.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" --Evelyn Beatrice Hall

Blessings,
Bill