Non-Citizen 2a?

EMNofSeattle · Nov 13, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
The constitution creates the government and the aspects pertaining to its operation. Voting or partaking in this operation wouldn't exist without the constitution or the government, hence a created privilege, not a right. Which interestingly enough isn't mentioned until the 14th and 15th amendments, as "rights".....the start of the "progressive" era.

Universal enfranchisement has caused many problems, leading to the rule of the majority and the costs to liberty by voting of themselves the property of others.

no, universal enfrachisement increased liberty by taking away the monopoly of the wealthy few to decide government. you can look to this day, the states that practiced voter suppression and limiting franchise are far more strict, their courts uphold searches that would never be considered anywhere else, they have strict gun laws, and felony charges for victimless offenses, Texas being a prime example of this......

NoTolerance · Nov 13, 2013

JustaShooter said:
What if you made the change as I've indicated above?

To answer your question literally, no, I don't think illegal aliens should be afforded the same privileges as legal aliens or lawful citizens. I'm not sure what the point of the question is.

eye95 · Nov 13, 2013

NoTolerance said:
I don't have a well-formed opinion on the issue as I haven't really considered it before, but let me pick your brain for a minute:

Illegal entry into the US is a non-violent crime. Why do you feel someone should be stripped of their natural right to self-defense as a result?

Illegal entry into the US is a misdemeanor. Is it your belief that anyone who commits a misdemeanor should be barred from carry, or just those here unlawfully?

Do you feel anyone that breaks *any* law forfeits the right to carry? I only ask because of your statement, "They are breaking the law and should be barred from carry," which seems overly broad to me.

My initial gut reaction was to agree with you. Illegal aliens shouldn't be afforded the same rights as legal aliens or lawful citizens. But I find myself reconsidering. While I don't approve of illegal immigration at all, I'm not convinced that it's a crime that warrants sacrificing a natural right. That said, I'm not sure there's any way an illegal alien could own a gun legally while in this country, so I'm wondering if it's all a moot point.

I guess in my view at this particular moment, I believe the set of circumstances in which we, as a society, should strip someone of a natural right should be *very* limited.

Every second they are in the US they are breaking the law. They are ongoing criminals, and it is quite reasonable to bar their carry.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Daylen · Nov 13, 2013

The main question is then are non-citizens "the people"? Sure they are people, but are they "the people"?

If not then, yes they have the natural right of self defense and therefore the right to bear arms, however they have no constitutional protections on that right.

I'll ask another question: do invaders have a right to bear arms in the place they are violating with their presence?

eye95 · Nov 13, 2013

Right. And does an invasion have to be by a nation? Or can it be by a group of organized or unorganized individuals?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

KBCraig · Nov 13, 2013

The constitution does not create rights. It creates a government, and then constrains it to doing only what is expressly allowed.

The constraints on government apply at all times, no matter if a person is a citizen or not.

SouthernBoy · Nov 14, 2013

Primus said:
Here's a doozy....

How do non-citizens have the same rights has citizens?(2a) STOP.... not asking if it's ok or cool or if they SHOULD have rights. Asking a straight legal question. I've been doing some research and google shows alot of opinions and a few pieces of case law. The case law I've seen shows more that non-citizens are withheld some rights (voting, running for office, can be booted from the country, can be withheld indefinitely prior to booting) and have others, but doesn't say where those others come from.

Is it just assumed that because the Con. doesn't specify that they only apply to Citizens? To include State Con. as well.

I started thinking about this because another guy posted a thread/question about having non-citizen inlaws come to town and he wanted to take them shooting. Also, I saw all threads blowing up about the Miranda rights of the BB. I know some of you keyboard kung foo guys are pretty smart and have alot of case law stashed in your favorites, so please share on this if you could. Thanks in advance.

Well technically it does mention this. It's in the Preamble;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Those not citizens are not "We the People of the United States". I know I am going to get a lot of flack about this, not at all surprising on this site, but words have meaning and I doubt the Founders didn't know or think about what they wrote. I shall not entertain any further discussion about this since I am not offering an opinion, just stating what was written.

WalkingWolf · Nov 14, 2013

I interpret "people" as people, that would include people occupying US soil who are not ordained.

KBCraig said:
The constitution does not create rights. It creates a government, and then constrains it to doing only what is expressly allowed.

The constraints on government apply at all times, no matter if a person is a citizen or not.

+1

sudden valley gunner · Nov 14, 2013

EMNofSeattle said:
no, universal enfrachisement increased liberty by taking away the monopoly of the wealthy few to decide government. you can look to this day, the states that practiced voter suppression and limiting franchise are far more strict, their courts uphold searches that would never be considered anywhere else, they have strict gun laws, and felony charges for victimless offenses, Texas being a prime example of this......

Yes, it has created many problems, the ability for more people to vote themselves others property and vote away others liberty has created many problems.

Nice strawman though.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 14, 2013

SouthernBoy said:
Well technically it does mention this. It's in the Preamble;

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Those not citizens are not "We the People of the United States". I know I am going to get a lot of flack about this, not at all surprising on this site, but words have meaning and I doubt the Founders didn't know or think about what they wrote. I shall not entertain any further discussion about this since I am not offering an opinion, just stating what was written.

Isn't it originally united States? ( using your post as a jumping off point for another thought)

OC for ME · Nov 14, 2013

Congress is the group of nitwits that set the rules for naturalization. Unfortunately, when Congress was just a young pup, there did not seem to be any nitwits as members of Congress back then so that the Founders could see what the 21st Century Congress member would be like.

SouthernBoy · Nov 14, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Isn't it originally united States? ( using your post as a jumping off point for another thought)

No sir. In the original document, the 'U' and 'S' were both upper case characters.

MAC702 · Nov 14, 2013

sudden valley gunner said:
Isn't it originally united States? ( using your post as a jumping off point for another thought)

As mentioned, the final draft did have United States with both capital letters.

The first draft, however, did not use the name "United States" at all, but listed the states individually.

Daylen · Nov 14, 2013

WalkingWolf said:
I interpret "people" as people, that would include people occupying US soil who are not ordained.

+1

You're cherrypicking, the term is "the people" not "people". Every word has meaning.

Daylen · Nov 14, 2013

KBCraig said:
The constitution does not create rights. It creates a government, and then constrains it to doing only what is expressly allowed.

The constraints on government apply at all times, no matter if a person is a citizen or not.

However, there are fewer constraints on the powers of government when applied against those who are not "the people". It would be ridiculous to extend full constraints to all people, such would mean an invading army has full rights when on US soil.

WalkingWolf · Nov 14, 2013

Daylen said:
You're cherrypicking, the term is "the people" not "people". Every word has meaning.

Every word has meaning "PEOPLE" means people no matter how one uses a their personal bias to attempt to change the meaning.

eye95 · Nov 14, 2013

I disagree. "The People" is different from "people." However, I believe the intent of the 2A is to apply to people in general, but clearly not to people unwelcome.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

WalkingWolf · Nov 14, 2013

Of course a statist would disagree with common sense. Got news for you and others, the people is composed of individual people.

eye95 · Nov 14, 2013

And, of course, we have folks here so shallow as to assume that all who disagrees with them must be "statist." I've learned not to care a whit about anything such undisciplined thinkers say.

Moving on, unless someone wants to talk substance.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

WalkingWolf · Nov 14, 2013

I base my opinion on someone on their history.

Non-Citizen 2a?

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member

Well-known member

Regular Member