^^This. It's a human right and possession of the tools of defence should never be a crime.No. Nobody should ever be charged for possessing a firearm. There should be no such charge.
^^This. It's a human right and possession of the tools of defence should never be a crime.No. Nobody should ever be charged for possessing a firearm. There should be no such charge.
No. Nobody should ever be charged for possessing a firearm. There should be no such charge.
^^This. It's a human right and possession of the tools of defence should never be a crime.
Ok, now where getting somewhere. I'm assuming an undocumented person being allowed to posses a frearm in a nation they have no business being in, falls under the life, liberty, pursuit of happiness?
Ok, then articulate why they should not be here at all. If they are entitled to all the privleges of being American (sans the 2 condtions of voting holding office), why can they simply stay and have what would be undoubtedly a better life for themselves? ...which, I disagree with.
not so fast there J. I'm askin f they should be charged if caught with a firearm.
Being here legally or not is a separate issue. It doesn't fall under "life, liberty, or pursuit of happiness" as much as it is simply an issue of ALL people having the right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. I will never be a party to stripping that right from anyone, no matter who they are, how they came to be here, or what they may have done in their lives.
As far as I'm concerned, only citizens have the right to BE here. For anyone else, being here is a privilege.
No, it's not a separate issue. Explain to me why only citizens have a right to be here? When the nation was being run by the founders, pretty much all comers were taken. The only provision that mattered was the the criteria upon which they could be considered for citizenship.
Many could care less about voting or holding office. They saw a place to pursue happiness, and they came. What makes now dfferent from then?
No, it's not a separate issue. Explain to me why only citizens have a right to be here? When the nation was being run by the founders, pretty much all comers were taken. The only provision that mattered was the the criteria upon which they could be considered for citizenship.
Many could care less about voting or holding office. They saw a place to pursue happiness, and they came. What makes now dfferent from then?
Huh...
Do we have different Founders Times in mind...
The Naturalization Act of 1790 established the rules for naturalized citizenship, as per Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, but places no restrictions on immigration. Citizenship is limited to white persons, with no other restriction on non-whites.
The Naturalization Act of 1795 lengthened required residency to become citizen.
The Naturalization Act of 1798 further lengthened required residency to become citizen registers white immigrants to establish date of initial residency.
The Naturalization Act of 1870
The Page Act of 1875 is the first act restricting immigration.
The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was an explicitly race-based immigration act.
The 1882 Immigration Act made several categories of immigrants ineligible for citizenship, including "lunatics" and those likely to become public charges
The Alien Contract Labor Law of 1885 prohibited "the importation and migration of foreigners and aliens under contract or agreement to perform labor in the United States, its territories, and the District of Columbia."
The Act of 1891 established a Commissioner of Immigration in the Treasury Department.
The Geary Act of 1892 extended and strengthened the Chinese Exclusion Act
no let them become american first , then extend rights
We reserve the right to deport anybody we want who's not a citizen because we're a sovereign nation. Just as I reserve the right to toss anyone out of my house who isn't part of my family.
If that's not how it is, that's how it should be.
Call it my American arrogance if you'd like.
But that's not what we're talking about, is it? We're talking about the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. This tangent has absolutely no bearing on the universal applicability of that right. It doesn't matter why they're here, or how they came to be here, or what I think about who can be here vs. who can't, and why. All people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms for their own defense. Period.
Extend rights?
I had the right to self defense when I was born, I dont see how it can be extended.
Extend rights?
I had the right to self defense when I was born, I dont see how it can be extended.
I'm glad that you have it, you should. I also think, that in our arrogance we should reserve our rights to our ctizens. The others must prove that they should be extended to them.
It really sounds like some constitutional amendments are in order.OK LET ME SEE IF I CAN SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU SYLVAIN ............. LET THEM BECOME FULL FLEDGED AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST BEFORE WE START HAND THEM OUT ALL THE PRIVLEDGES THAT COME ALONG WITH IT ............... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ................... IF YOUR ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..........YOU DONT GET ALL THE [STRIKE]RIGHTS [/STRIKE] privileges........
is the right to vote, a right or a privlege? Or does it matter your citizenship?
OK LET ME SEE IF I CAN SPELL THIS OUT FOR YOU SYLVAIN ............. LET THEM BECOME FULL FLEDGED AMERICAN CITIZENS FIRST BEFORE WE START HAND THEM OUT ALL THE PRIVLEDGES THAT COME ALONG WITH IT ............... DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT ................... IF YOUR ARE NOT AN AMERICAN CITIZEN ..........YOU DONT GET ALL THE RIGHTS ........
Voting is a Privilege of Citizenship...is the right to vote, a right or a privlege? Or does it matter your citizenship?
THAT'S JUST IT.
THEY'RE NOT *OUR* RIGHTS. THEY'RE *EVERYBODY'S* RIGHTS.
We find your arguments tawdry and unconvincing, and remain unmoved by your grandstanding appeal to patriotism as justification to strip people of their rights.