Should CCW permits be restricted to citizens? - Page 4
Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 141

Thread: Should CCW permits be restricted to citizens?

  1. Hi everyone, just found the forums-fantastic site! What an interesting question. Honestly, I can see fair arguments on both sides to an extent.

  2.   
  3. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Western South Dakota
    Posts
    1,021
    For those who would say 2A doesn't apply to legal residents, what about the other protections in our Constitution?

    If you've watched the RKBA news, a legal resident, who had held a concealed carry permit here in SD prior to a change in law in 2002 that required permit holders be US citizens, sued. Before the suit got settled, the state legislature fixed the law.

  4. If the right to keep and bear arms applies only to US citizens, as some would like...then that means that right was created by the US Government and bestowed by the US Government to US citizens only. Which also means it would then be perfectly acceptable for the US Government to revoke that right at any time they choose to. If the government grants it, the government can certainly remove it.

    I'm just not very comfortable with that.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  5. #34
    Absolutely not.

    If I am not mistaken, Indians (man) migrated here from Africa so I guess they are not real citizens either. Those kind of comments make no sense what-so-ever.

    The rights of American citizenship are just that and shouldnt apply to non-citizens. That doesnt mean they should be mistreated in any way. What next, giving them the right to vote or providing medical care and free education for their kids?....MMmmmmm.
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  6. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    If the right to keep and bear arms applies only to US citizens, as some would like...then that means that right was created by the US Government and bestowed by the US Government to US citizens only. Which also means it would then be perfectly acceptable for the US Government to revoke that right at any time they choose to. If the government grants it, the government can certainly remove it.

    I'm just not very comfortable with that.
    Didnt they already do that during Katrina? The US government gave us the right through the 2nd amendment. They could just as easily change it. Well, maybe not easily but they still could.
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  7. Quote Originally Posted by Chief1297 View Post
    Didnt they already do that during Katrina? The US government gave us the right through the 2nd amendment. They could just as easily change it. Well, maybe not easily but they still could.

    What next, giving them the right to vote or providing medical care and free education for their kids?
    You thinking is contrary to what the founding fathers thought.

    "[A] bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse."
    --- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787

    The Bill of Rights does not GRANT rights. The Bill of Rights PROTECTS rights that existed before the Constitution and before the US Government.

    The Bill of Rights: A Brief History | American Civil Liberties Union

    "CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS"

    Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not. Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule. Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away.

    The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs
    Notice this from McDonald v. Chicago:

    - Google Scholar

    After declaring their independence, the newly formed States replaced their colonial charters with constitutions and state bills of rights, almost all of which guaranteed the same fundamental rights that the former colonists previously had claimed by virtue of their English heritage. See, e.g., Pa. Declaration of Rights (1776), reprinted in 5 Thorpe 3081-3084 (declaring that "all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights," including the "right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences" and the "right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state").
    Chief Justice Henry Lumpkin's decision for the Georgia Supreme Court in Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846), illustrates this view. In assessing state power to regulate firearm possession, Lumpkin wrote that he was "aware that it has been decided, that [the Second Amendment], like other amendments adopted at the same time, is a restriction upon the government of the United States, and does not extend to the individual States." Id., at 250. But he still considered the right to keep and bear arms as "an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government," and thus found the States bound to honor it.
    In the Declaration of Indepence:

    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.
    The founding fathers, particularly James Madison and Thomas Jefferson did not view nor create the Bill of Rights to GRANT rights to anybody. They created the Bill of Rights to PROTECT the rights that they felt were NATURAL rights bestowed upon HUMAN BEINGS and not merely citizens.

    Yet, it appears that there are plenty of people here who wish to be selfish with their UNALIENABLE and NATURAL rights and claim them only because of their elite status of being a US citizen and would desire to deprive those natural rights even to those who have violated no laws, who have committed no criminal acts, who have lawfully entered and remained in this country. You, my friends, are the very reason this country exists. Certain persons of the British persuasion held exactly the same views about 240 years ago.

    You also say this:
    What next, giving them the right to vote or providing medical care and free education for their kids?
    US citizens don't have those rights.

    Also you say:
    Didnt they already do that during Katrina?
    The government removed nobody's rights to keep and bear arms. What the government did during Katrina was to ILLEGALLY CONFISCATE firearms.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  8. #37
    Navy, you sure did put a lot of thought and effort into your response and I appreciate it. I will submit to you that irregardless of the intent of the founding fathers, what ever the supreme court decides on an issue will be the law of the land irrespective of anything else. The right to defend yourself may be "natural" but I can assure you the right to keep and bear arms is totally government given. I also submit that the "right to bear arms" means little when your weapons are confiscated either legally or illegally. You still have the right to defend yourself, just not with a gun. With all that said, i understand where you are coming from and it is not that I disagree with you at all. It makes one wonder how the "right to bear arms" argument would go if the 2nd amendment was never developed. If you believe in God given rights, then I would think that man would be unable to affect them in any way. I think God or whatever you choose to call him/her, etc, gave you the opportunity to live but after that, even living can be taken away from you at any time by man himself. The right to "bear arms" are already being affected by state and local governments irrespective of what the 2nd Amendment says. I can use state law in Illinois as an example (not that I am from there but I understand guns and ammo are regulated through the use of a FOID card). As long as these laws or situation exists, i submit the right to bear arms is no such thing. Just my thoughts.
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  9. Quote Originally Posted by Chief1297 View Post
    The right to defend yourself may be "natural" but I can assure you the right to keep and bear arms is totally government given.
    The right to keep and bear arms is totally government infringed upon. Again, from the Declaration of Independecne:

    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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
    The basis of the foundation of government is not to grant rights. The basis of the foundation for government is to protect rights. It's too bad that such a large percentage of the population of this country have fully bought into the propaganda that the citizen's must serve the government.

    Do you really wonder why the government desires to "reasonably regulate" firearms possession by the citizen? The only thing that has changed in 240 years is that it is a little bit more difficult now for citizens to fulfill their duty to throw off such Government, should the situation so dictate.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    The right to keep and bear arms is totally government infringed upon. Again, from the Declaration of Independecne:



    The basis of the foundation of government is not to grant rights. The basis of the foundation for government is to protect rights. It's too bad that such a large percentage of the population of this country have fully bought into the propaganda that the citizen's must serve the government.

    Do you really wonder why the government desires to "reasonably regulate" firearms possession by the citizen? The only thing that has changed in 240 years is that it is a little bit more difficult now for citizens to fulfill their duty to throw off such Government, should the situation so dictate.
    A right that you are not allowed to exercise is not really a right is it? Especially, if the court system we have developed will not back up the rights that we were guaranteed during the formation of our Government. (Our only recourse other than revolt) I find it difficult to use a Governmental Document (Declaration of Independence and amendments) as a resource for arguing my right to bear arms in one hand and then trying to say that the Government doesn't grant rights comment in the other. Naturally, they are there to protect the rights that have been established. Well, except the right to bear arms as in the example I used earlier. Concept and reality are two different animals. Our politicians have shown us that our rights can be changed to protect us from ourselves (or protect them) and sometimes get backing from the courts. Usually, the American person can define the definition of "is' but when the legal system/courts get involved. Sometimes the definition becomes a question. I do want to say that it is not that I disagree with your interpretation. I am just making some casual observations.
    Due to the increased cost of Ammunition I will be forced to discontinue warning shots as of now! USAF Chief Master Sergeant, Retired, 1979-2005

  11. Quote Originally Posted by Chief1297 View Post
    I find it difficult to use a Governmental Document (Declaration of Independence and amendments).
    The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Amendments to the Constitution are not government documents. They are documents written and amended by the people, not by the government.

    There is also discussion about the Supreme Court ESTABLISHING the right to keep and bear arms in Heller and McDonald. Many people will claim the right to keep and bear arms did not exist before Heller and McDonald. That simply is not true. The rights existed before the Heller and McDonald decisions. The 2nd Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms ALREADY EXISTED prior to Heller and McDonald. The only thing the US Supreme Court did in the Heller and McDonald decisions was to ENFORCE the pre-existing protection against the government's violations.

    Our Declaration of Indepence then goes on to state that if the Supreme Court fails to enforce the protections that exist in our Constitution, than that duty of enforcement falls upon the citizens.
    Anyone who says, "I support the 2nd amendment, BUT"... doesn't. Element of Surprise: a mythical element that many believe has the same affect upon criminals that Kryptonite has upon Superman.

Page 4 of 15 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast