|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
View Poll Results: Should legal resident aliens be allowed to keep and carry concealed firearms? | |||
Yes: They should be allowed to have a CCW | 52 | 82.54% | |
No: They should not be allowed to have a CCW | 11 | 17.46% | |
Voters: 63. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 9, 2011, 11:24 PM | #26 |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Posts: 2
|
Well, then I guess the RTKBA shouldn't be called a right then. It's just a privilege granted by the state.
Rights are inalienable and granted by the Creator. |
January 9, 2011, 11:25 PM | #27 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: October 15, 2008
Posts: 2
|
Quote:
|
|
January 10, 2011, 12:05 AM | #28 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
As I see it, everyone within the jurisdiction of out government should have their rights protected. Should a foreign national not receive the benefit of due process because he's not a citizen? Imagine where that could lead. If the right to self-protection is as fundamental and inalienable as some of us claim, how could it be limited to only citizens of a given country?
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 10, 2011, 01:36 AM | #29 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 29, 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 6,126
|
Quote:
|
|
January 10, 2011, 04:35 AM | #30 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2006
Location: Body: Clarkston, Washington. Soul: LaCrosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 1,591
|
Quote:
See US code title 10 Quote:
__________________
- Jon Disequilibrium facilitates accommodation. 9mm vs .45 ACP? The answer is .429 |
||
January 24, 2011, 07:22 PM | #31 |
Member
Join Date: January 23, 2011
Location: ky
Posts: 33
|
I question whether constitutional rights should be afforded to non citizens.
On an individual note, the guys sounds like he is probably a good guy, but do we want to set the precedent of having legally armed foreigners running around the country? |
January 24, 2011, 09:58 PM | #32 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
Tom? I failed to rebut your previous. The Schultz Decision was a State circuit court of the couonty of Clark and created no binding precedent, even within Wisconsin itself. The State chose not to appeal, therefore only the county in which that court resides is affected by the decision. |
||
January 25, 2011, 08:59 AM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms isn't just a second amendment right... So many people loose sight that the right to protect yourself is a inalienable human right that has a long history dating back to time immorial.
It doesnt take much research to find example after example in history of nations and states of all sizes recognizing that every individual was allowed to bear arms for personal protection and in some cases a level of personal protection was required by law. Men and women through the middle ages and prior ages not only carried firearms but various knives, swords, pins and all manner of improvised weapons. The 2A is an acknowledges our history that defense is a right that transends time and age. The ability to protect ones self and ones loved ones and the right to bear arms capable of providing such protection are as natural as the air we breath and without such a right no man nor woman can truly ever be free.
__________________
Molon Labe Last edited by BGutzman; January 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM. |
January 25, 2011, 11:30 PM | #34 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,847
|
In post # 16, 44AMP mentions "a few extra paperwork hoops to jump through", which strikes me as problematic to say the very least, for re recent USSC rulings, didn't they overturn what some described as "a few paperwork hoops", never mind whether or not they were, in actual practice, surmountable.
Also, re that presumably harmless "paperwork", seemingly a rather large presumption, who is it that creatures the hoops? Do they come down to The Great Unwashed via bureaucratic decree, or might they be the expressed desires of those who so obviously know best, what is good for the rest of us peasants. Might they be the work product of our "elected tings" a mob that has gotten quite far out of touch with the thinking or desires and concerns of those they supposedly serve. The foregoing strike me as things that should be considered, questions that need to be answered. How do they strike others? Last edited by alan; January 25, 2011 at 11:34 PM. Reason: to correct poor typing |
|
|