WHY is this ALLOWED?

imported post

Why are foreign nationals who have NOT attained or earned citizenship, allowed to buy guns? They have human rights, civil rights, but they are NOT citizens and have no constitutional rights!

What part of foreign national do you people NOT understand?

Write your congressman PLEASE to take away the right of NON citizens to buy and own guns! This is not gun control, it does not infringe on any US CITIZENS rights. It's an AMERICAN thing. If I go to Korea I cannot buy a gun. If a Korean comes here and is NOT a US Citizen why should he?????????

What part of these words do you NOT understand:

Foreign national

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
A foreign national is a person present in a country who does not currently have the right to permanent residency of that country.

imported post

I would be careful on this subject and think it through a little more.

We have many foreign nationals serving proudly in our military with distinction. Would you also take their weapons away?

imported post

How can they have human rights and civil rights but not constitutional rights? Rights are recognized not granted.

Would you require that people who come here from other countries be rendered as defenseless as these students in VT?

You are right though, it is an American thing. In America we allow foreign nationals to be as human as the rest of us.

LoveMyCountry

imported post

LoveMyCountry wrote:

How can they have human rights and civil rights but not constitutional rights? Rights are recognized not granted.

Would you require that people who come here from other countries be rendered as defenseless as these students in VT?

You are right though, it is an American thing. In America we allow foreign nationals to be as human as the rest of us.

LoveMyCountry

Click to expand...

Well put.

imported post

If the right to bear arms is only a constitutional right and not a human right, than you lose it if the constitution is ammended. I don't buy that. The right to bear arms has existed since men became self-aware, long before any piece of paper was written in Philadelphia.

imported post

I agree that foreign nationals on our soil deserve the chance to defend themselves.

I know several immigrants who have not yet achieved their citizenship and who are decent people.

Aquick story. One recentChristmas, a local storehad a jar on the counter collecting for St. Judes Childrens Hospital, the Catholic charity hospital. The cashieraskedme on two successive visits if I would donate. I sidesteppedhim both times. On the third visit, I sidestepped his request again. Halfway to my car it hit me. He wasMuslim,clearly, unmistakably so. Iwent straight back and asked if he knew itwas aChristian charity. His reply,"They need help, too." I donated.

I would rather he be able to defend himself.

imported post

Why is this allowed? For the same reason you have the right to ask that ridiculous question.

Since you mentioned "earned citizenship"

Why are foreign nationals who have NOT attained or earned citizenship, ...

Click to expand...

This guy was a resident alien and was allowed by our laws to legally purchase the guns.

My wife is a naturalized American Citizen, speaks 5 languages and has 2 college degrees and she has "earned" her citizenship and I'll bet she knows more American History than most natural born citizens.

Oh yeah, then there's my grandfather who came to America when he was just 10 months old and lied about his citizenship and age so he could serve proudlyin the US Navy in WWI. Hebecame a citizen many years after WWI ended. Should he have been denied the right to defend himself until he "earned" it?

Not to mention themany "foreign nationals" in the US Navy that I've served with and who are still serving today protecting your right to make ridiculous posts like that.Most who were so thankful to come to Americathat they wanted to give it back with their service to our country. Most all of them became naturalized and "earned" their citizenship. They were then and still are my brothers and sisters.

Sadly, I cansay I know of many people born in America that shouldn't be called citizens, but residents. Read my blog: http://www.RightIsRight.us for my opinon on "residents".

I think that before you make posts like that,that you first ask yourself what have YOUdone lately to "earn" your citizenship, or at the very least deserve it?

Sleep well while many "foreign nationals" defend you tonight.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Sadly, I cansay I know of many people born in America that shouldn't be called citizens, but residents. Read my blog: http://www.RightIsRight.us for my opinon on "residents".

I think that before you make posts like that,that you first ask yourself what have YOUdone lately to "earn" your citizenship, or at the very least deserve it?

Click to expand...

That's a good point, Bob. Being born on this particular peice of dirt doesn't make you some sort of elite being. And there are countless American citizens who don't deserve the title, yet received it simply by accident of birth.

imported post

Infringement is a slippery slope, isn't it? Just a little compromise and all of a sudden we must elect a petty tyrant to decide who gets to be armed and to be more equal than someone else.

The Second Amendment says, 'shall not be infringed.' Compromise is failure and tyranny on the installment plan.

No mention of citizens or felons or safety or training or reasonable or quality or responsibility et cetera. Shall not be infringed.

Either we are equal or we are not. Good people ought to be armed where they will, with wits and guns and the truth. NRA KKKKKK MA$$

imported post

vermonter

This surprises me coming from you.

imported post

Just one question vermonter, where in the Constitution (or anywhere else for that matter) does it say that the U.S. Constitution only applies to citizens?!?

By your line of thinking cops would only have to read Miranda rights when arresting Americans; Federal and State governments could regulate the religious practices of non-citizens; free speech - yup, only Americans; not to mention double jeopardy or self-incrimination.

Could you please cite a court case or even a law that supports you point of view? I just don't see it happening.

To answer your question of: "If I go to Korea I cannot buy a gun. If a Korean comes here and is NOT a US Citizen why should he?????????"

Because this is America! Are you really saying that we should only treat the citizens of other countries the way they treat us? I mean come on, really?!? That would make us no better than anyone else...and that is definitely not American!

imported post

Write your congressman PLEASE to take away the right of NON citizens to buy and own guns! This is not gun control, it does not infringe on any US CITIZENS rights. It's an AMERICAN thing. If I go to Korea I cannot buy a gun. If a Korean comes here and is NOT a US Citizen why should he?????????

Click to expand...

Your statements are based on the false premise that gun control laws "work". The fact of the matter is, that so-called gun control laws only disarm law abiding citizens.

Your arguments are based on the same false premise utilized by Charles Schumer, Dianna Feinstein, et al which they use to attempt complete bans on gun ownership for American citizens.

imported post

The present federal law permits citizens and those with permanent resident status (and not otherwise prohibited)to legally acquire firearms. It would require a congressional amendment to the Gun Control Act to change this. Write your senators and rep if you want it changed. This Korean supposedly went through the same NICS screening as any native-born American would have, which is no better at predicting the future conduct of "real" Americans (as I understand the implication) than of anyone else. Tim McVey was a native son and a decorated veteran, no less...

-ljp

imported post

I think I tend to agree with 44Brent. You dont want immigrants to have guns, even though they are lawfully in the country? How about the 20 million or so illegal aliens out there? How do you regulate them out of obtaining firearms? The simple answer to that is, "You can't."

No- if you want to fix this problem of immigrant violence- deal with it as an immigration issue. The U.S. needs to reduce legal immigration to reasonable levels, deport illegal aliens,and enforce our borders. I realize that these things wouldnt mitigate the problem with this specific incident, however if reasonable limits were imposed on legal immigration, particularly about 20 years ago- Cho may never have come to the U.S.

9-11 was also an immigration issue, as many of the islamic attackers were staying in the U.S. on expired visas. Why was that allowed?



http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/http://www.saveourstate.org/forums/http://www.americanborderpatrol.com/

http://www.fairus.org/http://www.numbersusa.comhttp://www.alipac.us

imported post

ConditionThree wrote:

I think I tend to agree with 44Brent. You dont want immigrants to have guns, even though they are lawfully in the country? How about the 20 million or so illegal aliens out there? How do you regulate them out of obtaining firearms? The simple answer to that is, "You can't."

Click to expand...

An illegal alien will not pass the NICS check.

And if he's buying the weapon illegally, no law will stop it.

imported post

vermonter wrote:

Why are foreign nationals who have NOT attained or earned citizenship, allowed to buy guns? They have human rights, civil rights, but they are NOT citizens and have no constitutional rights!

What part of foreign national do you people NOT understand?

Write your congressman PLEASE to take away the right of NON citizens to buy and own guns! This is not gun control, it does not infringe on any US CITIZENS rights. It's an AMERICAN thing. If I go to Korea I cannot buy a gun. If a Korean comes here and is NOT a US Citizen why should he?????????

What part of these words do you NOT understand:

Foreign national

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
A foreign national is a person present in a country who does not currently have the right to permanent residency of that country.

Click to expand...

Sir, respectfully, I do take offense to the comments that You are making.

Part of CIVIL RIGHT is to be able to DEFEND ONESELF AND FAMILY

As I am right now in the Process of filling out my N-400 ( Application for U.S Citizenship), currently I am a Permanent Resident of This Great Nation and been since Aug of 2001. Prior to that I was here from Aug of 1998 on a (F1) Student visa.

One of the test questions on the U.S Citizen Question Form is ( #75 )

"Whose rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ?"

The answer might not be one that YOU want to hear.

It is "All People livinging in the United States".

It doesn't state U.S Citizens ONLY.

It took me 1YEAR after I got married to get MY WORKING Permit and about $1500, and it's going to cost me another $400 to file the N-400. Once I have Past all the ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK and paid the $$$ it can take ABOUT 8 months til I can get Sworn in as a U.S Citizen

This Great Nation was Built up due to FOREIGN NATIONALS (GREAT BRITAIN, SWEDEN, NORWAY just a FEW to mention )

I bet that if YOU go back in YOUR family tree YOU will FIND that there are PLENTY of FOREIGN NATIONALITY in YOUR back ground.

I could point out MANY individuals that should possibly not EVER be able to have a firearm in their Possession that ARE U.S CITIZENS by BIRTH.

So I have a lesser value in YOUR eyes to Protect my WIFE,CHILDREN and MYSELF cuz I'm not EQUAL to YOU

Some of the BASIC BELIEFS of the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDECE (July 4th 1776) states That ALL men are Equal and have the Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness ( I think actually Thomas Jefferson said part of this too ).

I have a STRONG belief that YOU, Sir, have to go back to the Basics and read what the forefathers meant to be an AMERICAN.

IF and EVER YOU will go thru what a LAWFUL RESIDENT goes thru to become a LAWFUL PERMANENT RESIDENT up to uncluding a U.S CITIZEN YOU better ,Sir, not state such Opionions. However That is YOUR 1st Amendment Right, THE BILL OF RIGHTS, THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

I CANNOT WAIT UNTIL I WILL BE ABLE TO SWEAR THE OATH


Naturalization Oath of Allegiance to
the United States of America


[align=justify]Oath:

[align=justify]"I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state or sovereignty, of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the armed forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God." [/align]

[/align]
Respectfully,

"with Great Power comes Great Responsibility'

so help me God.

imported post

BobCav wrote:

Why is this allowed? For the same reason you have the right to ask that ridiculous question.

Since you mentioned "earned citizenship"

Click to expand...

Why are foreign nationals who have NOT attained or earned citizenship, ...

Click to expand...

This guy was a resident alien and was allowed by our laws to legally purchase the guns.

My wife is a naturalized American Citizen, speaks 5 languages and has 2 college degrees and she has "earned" her citizenship and I'll bet she knows more American History than most natural born citizens.

Oh yeah, then there's my grandfather who came to America when he was just 10 months old and lied about his citizenship and age so he could serve proudlyin the US Navy in WWI. Hebecame a citizen many years after WWI ended. Should he have been denied the right to defend himself until he "earned" it?

Not to mention themany "foreign nationals" in the US Navy that I've served with and who are still serving today protecting your right to make ridiculous posts like that.Most who were so thankful to come to Americathat they wanted to give it back with their service to our country. Most all of them became naturalized and "earned" their citizenship. They were then and still are my brothers and sisters.

Sadly, I cansay I know of many people born in America that shouldn't be called citizens, but residents. Read my blog: http://www.RightIsRight.us for my opinon on "residents".

I think that before you make posts like that,that you first ask yourself what have YOUdone lately to "earn" your citizenship, or at the very least deserve it?

Sleep well while many "foreign nationals" defend you tonight.

Click to expand...

I read this AFTERI wrote my Piece.

Well Put.

I Know 4 Languages coming from Sweden.

I asked the "Naturalization" Questions here at work and all BUT ONE said ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

"I'll bet she knows more American History than most natural born citizens." I couldn't agree more.

imported post

vermonter wrote:

If I go to Korea I cannot buy a gun. If a Korean comes here and is NOT a US Citizen why should he?????????

Click to expand...

There is an error in your comparison here.

The correct way to look at it is that if you go to Korea, you are compelled to adhere to its laws (including those regarding guns.) If a Korean comes to the U.S., he must adhere to our laws (including those regarding guns).

I think you twisted the logic something terrible. But it's easily refuted, so I don't see why you used that example. It doesn't support your position.

imported post

John Hanson, American Patriot and First President of the United States
(1715-1783)


He was the heir of one of the greatest family traditions in the colonies and became the patriarch of a long line of American patriots – his great-grandfather died at Lutzen beside the great King Gustavus Aldophus of Sweden; his grandfather was one of the founders of New Sweden along the Delaware River in Maryland; one of his nephews was the military secretary to George Washington; another was a signer of the Declaration; still another was a signer of the Constitution; yet another was Governor of Maryland during the Revolution; and still another was a member of the first Congress; two sons were killed in action with the Continental Army; a grandson served as a member of Congress under the new Constitution; and another grandson was a Maryland Senator. Thus, even if Hanson had not served as President himself, he would have greatly contributed to the life of the nation through his ancestry and progeny.

As a youngster he began a self-guided reading of classics and rather quickly became an acknowledged expert in the juridicalism of Anselm and the practical philosophy of Seneca – both of which were influential in the development of the political philosophy of the great leaders of the Reformation. It was based upon these legal and theological studies that the young planter – his farm, Mulberry Grove was just across the Potomac from Mount Vernon – began to espouse the cause of the patriots.

In 1775 he was elected to the Provincial Legislature of Maryland. Then in 1777, he became a member of Congress where he distinguished himself as a brilliant administrator. Thus, he was elected President in 1781. Was John Hanson the first President of the United States?

The new country was actually formed on March 1, 1781 with the adoption of The Articles of Confederation.This document was actually proposed on June 11, 1776, but not agreed upon by Congress until November 15, 1777.Maryland refused to sign this document until Virginia and New York ceded their western lands (Maryland was afraid that these states would gain too much power in the new government from such large amounts of land). Once the signing took place in 1781, a President was needed to run the country.John Hanson was chosen unanimously by Congress (which included George Washington). In fact, all the other potential candidates refused to run against him, as he was a major player in the Revolution and an extremely influential member of Congress.

As the first President, Hanson had quite the shoes to fill. No one had ever been President and the role was poorly defined. His actions in office would set precedent for all future Presidents.He took office just as the Revolutionary War ended. Almost immediately, the troops demanded to be paid. As would be expected after any long war, there were no funds to meet the salaries. As a result, the soldiers threatened to overthrow the new government and put Washington on the throne as a monarch.All the members of Congress ran for their lives, leaving Hanson running the government. He somehow managed to calm the troops and hold the country together. If he had failed, the government would have fallen almost immediately and everyone would have been bowing to King Washington.

Hanson, as President, ordered all foreign troops off American soil, as well as the removal of all foreign flags. This was quite a feat, considering the fact that so many European countries had a stake in the United States since the days following Columbus.Hanson established the Great Seal of the United States, which all Presidents have since been required to use on all official documents.President Hanson also established the first Treasury Department, the first Secretary of War, and the first Foreign Affairs Department.Lastly, he declared that the fourth Thursday of every November was to be Thanksgiving Day, which is still true today.

The Articles of Confederation only allowed a President to serve a one-year term during any three-year period, so Hanson actually accomplished quite a bit in such little time.He served in that office from November 5, 1781 until November 3, 1782. He was the first President to serve a full term after the full ratification of the Articles of Confederation – and like so many of the Southern and New England Founders, he was strongly opposed to the Constitution when it was first discussed. He remained a confirmed anti-federalist until his untimely death.

Six other presidents were elected after him - Elias Boudinot (1783), Thomas Mifflin (1784), Richard Henry Lee (1785), Nathan Gorman (1786), Arthur St. Clair (1787), and Cyrus Griffin (1788) - all prior to Washington taking office.Why don't we ever hear about the first seven Presidents of the United States?It's quite simple - The Articles of Confederation didn't work well. The individual states had too much power and nothing could be agreed upon.A new doctrine needed to be written - something we know as the Constitution.

George Washington was definitely not the first President of the United States. He was the first President of the United States under the Constitution we follow today.And the first seven Presidents are forgotten in history.

imported post

Hanson was, in fact, the third "President of the United States in Congress Assembled," (albeit the first to serve a full term). He was not a president of the United States. At the time, the office was merely a presiding officer of the legislature, not an executive of the State. The two title just, unfortunately, share a similar nomenclature - president. As for the details of his prestigious lineage, there's more debate to be found, but it's hard to sift through the accounts.