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

[RoyalTenenbaum]

RULES ARE IRRELEVANT TO "THE BAD GUYS."

Those two laws making murder and harm illegal are enough. If someone can't muster the strength to abide by those two simple rules, they sure as heck aren't going to be magically stopped by a rule prohibiting anything else including tool ownership.

 

[bingley]

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.

The next logical question is, do you think this is a good system? In other words, do you think it's a good idea for you to have no basic legal protection abroad? If so, what makes you go abroad?

We are setting aside another issue: what you are stating is simply untrue. In First World nations, the legal procedures may be different, the local interpretations may be different, but all honor human rights. Yes, they sometimes fail to do that, but then again we fail to do that, too. You're not the only one who's lived abroad, and I find your statement quite bizarre. What you're saying is that we have no human rights abroad. No government says this. The fact that includes even governments with poor human rights records ought to show you the hold of this ideal as a legal principle.

Look, if I can be of help here, it really looks to most of us that you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into your position, propping yourself up with a certain degree of denial and contradiction. This is not about winning or losing some unimportant internet argument, but I do hope that you can have a chance to reevaluate your view of the world.

Da Bing

 

[rugertoter]

So defending yourself and familly is a "benefit" only given by your citizenship and not a basic right?

Non-US-citizens are good enough to pay taxes but not good enough to have the right to protect themselves?

If I get shot I couldnt pay taxes anymore, good thing for you I can legally own guns with the current laws so I can live another day to pay more taxes and help rebuild the US economy.You are welcome.

Maybe, but I used to live around a lot of them who did not pay taxes(or very little at best) and had no problem driving around illegally, then hauling ass after they hit someone on the road, scattering like Cock-Roaches under a flashlight. A cop friend of mine had his wife killed like that, in a head on collision - they found the bastard a few hour later while he was getting FREE health care at the local hospital. YOU MAY BE TRYING TO GET YOUR CITIZENSHIP THE RIGHT WAY, BUT LOTS OF THEM ARE NOT. Don't slam me for my opinion on this matter and I will not slam your opinion, nor will I get smart with you either. The question was asked and I answered it the way I feel, so get over it.

 

[Sylvain]

Maybe, but I used to live around a lot of them who did not pay taxes(or very little at best) and had no problem driving around illegally, then hauling ass after they hit someone on the road, scattering like Cock-Roaches under a flashlight. A cop friend of mine had his wife killed like that, in a head on collision - they found the bastard a few hour later while he was getting FREE health care at the local hospital. YOU MAY BE TRYING TO GET YOUR CITIZENSHIP THE RIGHT WAY, BUT LOTS OF THEM ARE NOT. Don't slam me for my opinion on this matter and I will not slam your opinion, nor will I get smart with you either. The question was asked and I answered it the way I feel, so get over it.

I understand what you're saying, but I see once again that you are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and criminals when im talking about LEGAL immigration.The two kinds of immigration have NOTHING to do with eachohter.
Im here legally, I go through the US Customs when I enter the country, I drive legally with a valid DL, I pay taxes etc.
I even do my best to speak the language.
I have nothing to do with the criminals you are mentioning.

And im not trying to get my (US) citizenship btw, im just here legally and enjoying my rights.Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[rugertoter]

I understand what you're saying, but I see once again that you are talking about ILLEGAL immigration and criminals when im talking about LEGAL immigration.The two kinds of immigration have NOTHING to do with eachohter.
Im here legally, I go through the US Customs when I enter the country, I drive legally with a valid DL, I pay taxes etc.
I even do my best to speak the language.
I have nothing to do with the criminals you are mentioning.

And im not trying to get my (US) citizenship btw, im just here legally and enjoying my rights.Nothing more, nothing less.

It sounds like you want to live here, but don't want to be a part of "here". I have been in many places in this world, while in the military, and tried to basically fit in with the locals as I could, but did not want to live in or be a citizen of any of those other countries. I have picked a team to be a part of, for better or for worse, and I will stick by that. So again I ask, if you want to be here and pay taxes here, then why don't you get a mit and get into a game? Does the country where you come from allow its citizens to own firearms? Would your country allow me, as a non-citizen, to own a gun? If not, is that why you are here, so you can own a firearm? Sounds like being an American citizen is not so bad to me, so why not take the plunge?

 

[Sylvain]

It sounds like you want to live here, but don't want to be a part of "here". I have been in many places in this world, while in the military, and tried to basically fit in with the locals as I could, but did not want to live in or be a citizen of any of those other countries. I have picked a team to be a part of, for better or for worse, and I will stick by that. So again I ask, if you want to be here and pay taxes here, then why don't you get a mit and get into a game? Does the country where you come from allow its citizens to own firearms? Would your country allow me, as a non-citizen, to own a gun? If not, is that why you are here, so you can own a firearm? Sounds like being an American citizen is not so bad to me, so why not take the plunge?

Well sorry I wasn't really clear I guess.
I do love this country and if one day I become a US citizen I would be proud of it, just like today im proud of this country and proud of all the american friends that I know without being a citizen of this country.
What I meant is that I didnt come here in order to become a citizen (like many people do in order to get a better life), I would be here even if I didnt have the chance to become a citizen later.
I came here to be with someone who lives in the US.
In the future I may think about becoming a citizen.I still dont think im ready for that.I still have to learn about the culture and master the language, know more about the history ... etc in order to feel like I deserve that citizenship.
For me it's something serious and it's not just a piece of paper that you get.You know?
I meant im not after that, but im not against it.
I would be proud to call all my american friends my fellow citizens someday.

And yes the country where I come from allow citizens to own guns, we have millions of gun owners.And im not sure about the law for non-citizens to be honest.
I actually learned how to shoot handguns there, even before I knew I would move to the US one day and I was practicing sport shooting in a club.
I would hate to live in a country where I cant own a gun but I didnt move because of that.

 

[Kutnupe14]

The next logical question is, do you think this is a good system? In other words, do you think it's a good idea for you to have no basic legal protection abroad? If so, what makes you go abroad?

We are setting aside another issue: what you are stating is simply untrue. In First World nations, the legal procedures may be different, the local interpretations may be different, but all honor human rights. Yes, they sometimes fail to do that, but then again we fail to do that, too. You're not the only one who's lived abroad, and I find your statement quite bizarre. What you're saying is that we have no human rights abroad. No government says this. The fact that includes even governments with poor human rights records ought to show you the hold of this ideal as a legal principle.

Look, if I can be of help here, it really looks to most of us that you're digging yourself deeper and deeper into your position, propping yourself up with a certain degree of denial and contradiction. This is not about winning or losing some unimportant internet argument, but I do hope that you can have a chance to reevaluate your view of the world.

Da Bing

No, I think it's fairly factual. When, or at least now, when the US government fails to honor civil rights, it is universally considered criminal. When other nations do it, it is not uncommon for it to be viewed as legal.

Do I have human rights abroad? Well that all depends on what the nation I am residing allows. Is that how it should be? Who knows? However, I know that National Sovereignty trumps human rights all day long.

 

[nate1865]

The constitution and bill of rights apply only to U.S. Citizens.

We would have to redefine our constitution and bill of rights to be broader in scope.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

The constitution and bill of rights apply only to U.S. Citizens.

We would have to redefine our constitution and bill of rights to be broader in scope.

I suggest you re-read the Declaration of Independence and perhaps some of the writings of the Founders. They would likely not agree with you. Until we started enacting laws restricting firearms, nobody took it amiss if another person was armed. I don't know the history of gun control in the US, but I'll bet the framers of gun control legislation were more concerned with restricting all firearms than with the supposed rights of US citizens (which they were violating anyway) as opposed to those of non-citizens.

The same dichotomy exists with other Constitutional guarantees when applied to non-citizens. Where we sometimes get confused about human rights (or Constitutional guarantees of rights) when applied to non-citizens, is the issue of the treatment of "unlawful combatants" in the War on Terror. Those folks are in violation of the Laws of War and have vacated their rights under those laws - essentially, they are "war criminals".

 

[jbombelli]

The constitution and bill of rights apply only to U.S. Citizens.

We would have to redefine our constitution and bill of rights to be broader in scope.

Can you point to me which part of the Bill of Rights defines "the people" as "U.S. Citizens only"?

 

[NYFelon]

Can you point to me which part of the Bill of Rights defines "the people" as "U.S. Citizens only"?

It could be argued that the statement "...to preserve for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", which closes the Constitutional Preamble makes that case. Who could be the "posterity" of the original American citizens but future American citizens?

Personally, I'm torn on this issue. I believe every human being has the fundamental right to defend life, liberty and property. I am also personally inclined to believe that legal immigrants to the United States enjoy the protections of the Constitution. I do often wonder about that clause though.

 

[jeremy]

I am glad that I am not alone in believing that everyone should have the same chance at Self Defense....

 

[Sylvain]

I am glad that I am not alone in believing that everyone should have the same chance at Self Defense....

Me too, I believe it's a human right and not a right given by any citizenship.Therefore everyone should have the right to buy and carry guns.

If I see someone getting attacked by criminals, a woman getting raped, a child getting abused etc, im going to do my best to defend and protect that person and im not going to ask for a proof of citizenship before doing so.

"Sorry ma'am I know you are being raped but I need to see a valid US passport or any proof of US citizenship in order to draw my gun and make this guy stop, and no a permanent resident card wont do ma'am, you know I dont believe that if you are a foreign national you should have any right of self defense ."

That's what some people think, only US citizens are worth getting defended and only them have the right to defend themselves.Scary.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

It could be argued that the statement "...to preserve for ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America", which closes the Constitutional Preamble makes that case. Who could be the "posterity" of the original American citizens but future American citizens?

Personally, I'm torn on this issue. I believe every human being has the fundamental right to defend life, liberty and property. I am also personally inclined to believe that legal immigrants to the United States enjoy the protections of the Constitution. I do often wonder about that clause though.

It could be argued that a peanut butter and jelly sandwich is a peanut butter sandwich too, but neither argument is a strong one, nor bears much resemblance to the actual facts. BTW, somebody posted an article detailing the history of the 2nd Amendment and challenges to it on another thread. It's well worth reading; I wish I'd read it before my last post because I would have been able to be more specific.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Went back and found the thread; good reading for all:

https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/the_2nd_amendment/167362-cooking_up_a_collective_right.html

 

[ryknoll3]

As it currently stands, all people in the United States (for whatever reason) are extended Constitutional protections. I personally believe that foreign nationals should not be entitled to the same privs as American citizens. I vote no. To firearms and almost all other protections, save "cruel and unusual."

Edit: I am not opposed to another document be generated that explains the rights of foreign nationals, and even allows some the ability to possess firearms, but I 100% disagree with the Constitution being applied to them.

For example, illeagls that commit crimes should not have a 5th Amendment protection, nor should that have 4th or 6th. They are to be judged by their peers? Well legit Americans aren't their peers. They have a gun in plain view in their car, they're illegal, and they suspected of murder... why is a warrant needed?

Of course this is dependant on confirming that they are NOT US citizens; first.

First, you're comparing apples and oranges. OP was asking about those here with legal status. There is a BIG difference between those here legally with green cards, student visas, etc. and those who are here illegally. Those here illegally are already prohibited from possessing firearms.

There is NO WAY I could support those being here LEGALLY not be afforded Constitutional rights. Are you saying that someone who applies for and is granted a green card should just be able to have their door kicked in by any cop that feels like it? They should be able to be dragged from their car and have it searched on a traffic stop without PC? If they go to court, they should be compelled to testify against themselves, not be able to face their accusers and not have any right to speedy trial?

Sounds like North Korea.

 

[Kutnupe14]

First, you're comparing apples and oranges. OP was asking about those here with legal status. There is a BIG difference between those here legally with green cards, student visas, etc. and those who are here illegally. Those here illegally are already prohibited from possessing firearms.

There is NO WAY I could support those being here LEGALLY not be afforded Constitutional rights. Are you saying that someone who applies for and is granted a green card should just be able to have their door kicked in by any cop that feels like it? They should be able to be dragged from their car and have it searched on a traffic stop without PC? If they go to court, they should be compelled to testify against themselves, not be able to face their accusers and not have any right to speedy trial?

Sounds like North Korea.

Quick question then, should those here illegally be prohibited from possessing firearms?

 

[jeremy]

Quick question then, should those here illegally be prohibited from possessing firearms?

Yes, as they should be in a Detention Facility awaiting Deportation...

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yes, as they should be in a Detention Facility awaiting Deportation...

not so fast there J. I'm askin f they should be charged if caught with a firearm.

 

[jbombelli]

not so fast there J. I'm askin f they should be charged if caught with a firearm.

No. Nobody should ever be charged for possessing a firearm. There should be no such charge.