i thought that was already established...not being able to vote, run for office of presidency, etc.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Should NON US citizens get Concealed permits?
- Thread starter amzbrady
- Start date
- Status
i thought that was already established...not being able to vote, run for office of presidency, etc.
NavyMike
Regular Member
It's the last part of Amndt XIV Sect 1 that has been used to extend the meaning beyond citizens, in settled case law:
"..... Nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
which would include children and 18y old us citizens
FMCDH
Regular Member
There is a reason why the word "protection" is used and not "application" or another more generic word.
what do you mean?
NavyMike
Regular Member
No argument here,
I'm still not sure why some believe that because one group (>18s) are denied a constitutional right, it justifies denying the same right to another group. By strengthen and affirming one group's right, we strengthen our own.
wrightme
Regular Member
Um, I would not conflate those with Rights.
agreed. i just think it should be the other way around. adults first and then non-citizensNo argument here,
I'm still not sure why some believe that because one group (>18s) are denied a constitutional right, it justifies denying the same right to another group. By strengthen and affirming one group's right, we strengthen our own.
u wouldnt consider voting to be a right!!!!????
NavyMike
Regular Member
It's not a right that is enshrined in the original Bill of Rights. IE Amndts I-X.
NavyMike
Regular Member
I guess there is more than one way to skin a cat.
Speaking to WA specifically, perhaps it was just more likely to pass through Olympia than CC for 18 year olds. I'm sure that the SAF's lawsuit helped:
http://www.saf.org/legal.action/wa.alien.resident.lawsuit/wa.alien.resident.complaint.pdf
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
In simple form....YES.
Last edited:
neither is the 14th amendment.........
last time i checked, right to bear arms isnt a human right "endowed by our creator"
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
I would disagree. Certainly 'life' is an unalienable right. My protection of my life is endowed by my Creator and my choice of how I defend my life is unalienable. Governments are instituted among men, but the gift of life by my Creator stands well above any law the government can muster. I will pursue my happiness and my liberty to the ends of this earth. I would expect any visitor to this country (with all due apologies to the natives of North America) to do the same. And until a visitor has done harm to another, I would expect him to be armed at all times. It is indeed his duty to be armed at all times. (credit T.J.)
good luck trying to protect yourself with a rocket launcher, full auto machine guns and claymores. and no no no, thats not how it works, or else everywhere in the world would allow their citizens to have weapons...but they dont
gogodawgs
Campaign Veteran
Since I did not bring up any of the weapons you mention I will hold your argument as empty. None of those devices are designed to protect life in self defense. They are offensive weapons. Trying to distract is a failed and poor attempt when the argument is lost.
My Creator is where the right to keep and bear arms comes from, no where else.
wrightme
Regular Member
That isn't the Right. It is the Right to self-defense that is the natural Right. RKBA is the extension of it to the tools available for SD.
except that is your interpretation of it and not at all what it means. like i said, if it was a human right, then everyone would already have it
wrightme
Regular Member
Not to the level of unalienable Right. Voting is something that requires society. Self-Defense does not.
- Status