Should CCW permits be restricted to citizens? - Page 5
Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 141

Thread: Should CCW permits be restricted to citizens?

  1. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    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.
    In a play on words (while still understanding your meaning) the documents you mentioned were written by people but not really by the people. They used representatives much the same way we do now. How much input do you think the average person had in the formation of these documents? They did agree by consensus to abide by the words written in these documents. Once ratified, they became government documents. IMO. They exist based upon the will of the people. With that said, citizens of today do much of the same thing. Using my example of before, try to buy a weapon or carry a weapon in Illinois without a FOID card. First, you cant buy one without permission. Second, carrying a weapon will get you jail time and fines. So much for your right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd. The citizens of Illinois have determined through their elected officials that your 2nd doesn't mean squat. That is their will no matter what the fed says. So much for a right. I dont see our current citizens rising up against a SC decision...once again, so much for a right. I am aware of your discussion concerning Heller and McDonald and my interpretation is the same as yours. Let me ask you this, if the will of the people change (which seems to be the trend) and the second is taken out, do you still have the right to bear arms? If not, then the bearance of said arms is not a inalienable right.
    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

  2.   
  3. Quote Originally Posted by Chief1297 View Post
    With that said, citizens of today do much of the same thing. Using my example of before, try to buy a weapon or carry a weapon in Illinois without a FOID card. First, you cant buy one without permission. Second, carrying a weapon will get you jail time and fines. So much for your right to bear arms guaranteed by the 2nd. The citizens of Illinois have determined through their elected officials that your 2nd doesn't mean squat. That is their will no matter what the fed says. So much for a right.
    I disagree with you. If that were the case than NO state law or city ordinance could be declared unconstituitional by the US Supreme Court. However, by applying the 2nd Amendment to the states via the 14th Amendment the US Supreme Court has said that the 2nd Amendment applies in every state (McDonald v. Chicago). The US Supreme Court has struck down many state laws in the past as unconstitutional based upon the incorporation of parts of the Constitution as applying to the states via the 14th Amendment. Roe v. Wade is probably the most famous example. Don't forget, the Chicago gun ban was enacted by government officials at the will of the people, right? The US Supreme Court said - NOT CONSTITUTIONAL and remanded it back to the state court.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chief1297 View Post
    Let me ask you this, if the will of the people change (which seems to be the trend) and the second is taken out, do you still have the right to bear arms? If not, then the bearance of said arms is not a inalienable right.
    First, I disagree with you as to what the trend in the will of the people is. I believe the trend is moving TOWARDS less gun control and MORE rights of the people to keep and bear arms. In the last couple of years, how many anti-gun laws have had enough support to pass? California's ban on open carry did not. Arizona passed "Constitutional Carry", Wyoming did away with concealed carry permits for residents.

    However, you make a valid point. What if the 2nd Amendment was repealed? What if, following the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, firearms were banned in the US? Does that abrograte (sp?) the right to keep and bear arms? Very interesting concept considering the founding fathers wrote in the Declaration of Independence that it was the duty of the citizen to throw off a government that grossly infringed upon natural rights. I guess then it would have to come down to if there were enough persons who believed the right to bear arms was truly a human and natural right that no government could take away in order to throw off that government and establish a new government that did recognize that right.

    In case you have not noticed, our government does NOT act on the will of the people. Our government acts on the will of those with the most money to throw their way.

    Obviously on this forum, those people who feel the right to bear arms is a natural human right are few and far between.
    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.

  4. #43
    In answer to the original question my reply would be "only if paying taxes in the US was restricted to US Citizens" and I know that isn't the case because dear old Uncle Sam has had thousands of dollars of my money over the last 10 years I've lived here, legally and according to the wording on my green card 'permanent(ly)'.

    The laws of the country apply to everyone who is there, and to deny a right or a privilege to anyone here legally would leave you open to lawsuit for discrimination based on national origin

  5. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Edsworld View Post
    They don't have the right to protect themselves?
    No, American rights are......for Americans. Crossing the border does not give you our rights. WE have the right to keep and bear arms IN AMERICA, go to another country, your rights don't travel with you. Why would it work the other way around? and NO illegals ABSOLUTELY do not have ANY rights, other than the right to be jailed and deported. If your ILLEGALLY in a country YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!!! Last time I checked American criminals can't walk around with guns to defend themselves why would foreigners be allowed to?

  6. Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    No, American rights are......for Americans. Crossing the border does not give you our rights. WE have the right to keep and bear arms IN AMERICA, go to another country, your rights don't travel with you. Why would it work the other way around? and NO illegals ABSOLUTELY do not have ANY rights, other than the right to be jailed and deported. If your ILLEGALLY in a country YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!!! Last time I checked American criminals can't walk around with guns to defend themselves why would foreigners be allowed to?
    So, you are vacationing in England. A criminal breaks into your hotel room in England and you whack him with a baseball bat (or cricket bat?) because you are in England for a cricket tournament. By your reasoning, you should go to jail for murder in England...

    The Bill of Rights in this country, of which the 2nd Amendment is one, was not written to grant rights to American citizens. The Bill of Rights were written and added to the Constitution to prevent the government from infringing upon rights that the founders said were unalienable rights applicable to all persons, citizen or not.
    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.

  7. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    So, you are vacationing in England. A criminal breaks into your hotel room in England and you whack him with a baseball bat (or cricket bat?) because you are in England for a cricket tournament. By your reasoning, you should go to jail for murder in England...

    The Bill of Rights in this country, of which the 2nd Amendment is one, was not written to grant rights to American citizens. The Bill of Rights were written and added to the Constitution to prevent the government from infringing upon rights that the founders said were unalienable rights applicable to all persons, citizen or not.
    No, people in England have a right to defend themselves, just NOT with guns! And who's talking about the purpose of the Bill of Rights? The argument is that an ILLEGAL immigrant or NON citizen should not have all the rights of an American simply because there feet are on our soil. Look at the thread title!

  8. Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    No, American rights are......for Americans. Crossing the border does not give you our rights. WE have the right to keep and bear arms IN AMERICA, go to another country, your rights don't travel with you. Why would it work the other way around? and NO illegals ABSOLUTELY do not have ANY rights, other than the right to be jailed and deported. If your ILLEGALLY in a country YOU ARE A CRIMINAL!!! Last time I checked American criminals can't walk around with guns to defend themselves why would foreigners be allowed to?
    Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    No, people in England have a right to defend themselves, just NOT with guns! And who's talking about the purpose of the Bill of Rights? The argument is that an ILLEGAL immigrant should not have all the rights of an American simply because there feet are ILLEGALLY on our soil.
    You say people in England have a right to defend themselves so you should have the right to defend yourself in England. AND you say American rights are for Americans so those rights should not apply non-US Citizens. Well, why aren't English rights for English citizens only? Why should they extend THEIR rights to you, you aren't a citizen of the U.K.!

    And the argument is not about illegal aliens. They are criminals. The argument is about non-US Citizens legally present in the US.
    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.

  9. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by NavyLT View Post
    You say people in England have a right to defend themselves so you should have the right to defend yourself in England. AND you say American rights are for Americans so those rights should not apply non-US Citizens. Well, why aren't English rights for English citizens only? Why should they extend THEIR rights to you, you aren't a citizen of the U.K.!

    And the argument is not about illegal aliens. They are criminals. The argument is about non-US Citizens legally present in the US.
    Read through the post and you'll see that illegals have been repeatedly brought up, as far as this thread is concerned a non-citizen, is a non-citizen hear legally or not! I also did not say I couldn't defend myself in the UK since I wasn't talking about me, But either way I can't do it WITH A GUN!!! Very simple, you want the rights of an American? BECOME ONE!

  10. Quote Originally Posted by snatale42 View Post
    Read through the post and you'll see that illegals have been repeatedly brought up, as far as this thread is concerned a non-citizen, is a non-citizen hear legally or not! I also did not say I couldn't defend myself in the UK since I wasn't talking about me, But either way I can't do it WITH A GUN!!! Very simple, you want the rights of an American? BECOME ONE!

    What about the right to due process of law and trial by jury? Should those rights be denied non US Citizens as well? Let's say a Canadian visitor to the US is charged with murder. They simply go to jail, go directly to jail, do not pass GO, with no trial because they are not US Citizen and therefore have no right to a trial?

    Would you like to have that imposed upon you if you were lawfully visiting Canada?
    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.

  11. Snatale, as far as I'm concerned on this thread a non-citizen here legally is completely different than one here illegally.
    I would hope that anyone visiting legally is treated with the respect they deserve. That would include the right to a CCW so long as they meet all the requirements of the locale they are in.

Page 5 of 15 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... 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