Foreign National Arrested At Virginia Tech With Illegal 'Assault Firearm....

[KLB]

Get with the program! You aren't fully human unless you are red, white, and blue-bleeding descendant of a Revolutionary War veteran.

I'm just an immigrant

 

[seedubs1]

Yeah, I know I'm against the grain on this one. I don't agree with the official INGO position on this. And I stated my reasoning.

This place is an echo chamber most of the time. Dissenting opinions make it more interesting.

I thought the official INGO position was that self-defense...including with firearms, is a human right.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I'm just an immigrant

It's not that bad. We still think you are alright even if you aren't quite human.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Yeah, I know I'm against the grain on this one. I don't agree with the official INGO position on this. And I stated my reasoning.

This place is an echo chamber most of the time. Dissenting opinions make it more interesting.

I agree with you on this, but note that as our constitution is written, our belief runs afoul of it. I generally hold the opinion, that the Constitution should only, in most instances, apply to citizens.

 

[HoughMade]

Yeah, I know I'm against the grain on this one. I don't agree with the official INGO position on this. And I stated my reasoning.

This place is an echo chamber most of the time. Dissenting opinions make it more interesting.

Sure, I understand your position, but it inherently turns the right to keep and bear arms into a right which government may summarily grant or deny...which was not the whole reasoning behind the 2nd Am. The intention was to limit government from infringing on a preexisting right possessed by all people. That other governments do not recognize this right does not change its character as one that transcends the institutions of man.

...anyhoo, those are my thoughts.

 

[seedubs1]

So you think the founding fathers would have allowed the British to come over here for a vacation with their rifles for self protection?

Sure, I understand your position, but it inherently turns the right to keep and bear arms into a right which government may summarily grant or deny...which was not the whole reasoning behind the 2nd Am. The intention was to limit government from infringing on a preexisting right possessed by all people. That other governments do not recognize this right does not change its character as one that transcends the institutions of man.

...anyhoo, those are my thoughts.

 

[Thor]

If they were coming to start farming...yeah. As units in an army not so much.

 

[seedubs1]

Ah, so people coming over to be.....wait for it.....citizens?

If they were coming to start farming...yeah. As units in an army not so much.

 

[Thor]

Ah, so people coming over to be.....wait for it.....citizens?

Isn't that what I said?

 

[seedubs1]

You were just less blunt with your words

Isn't that what I said?

 

[Beowulf]

So you think the founding fathers would have allowed the British to come over here for a vacation with their rifles for self protection?

Well since they literally did, yes. As well as many other Europeans.

The US, for a good portion of the 1800s, was a hunting destination for wealthy Europeans (and really, probably still is). Foreign nationals, legally in the country, have always been able to purchase and use firearms here (for both hunting and self-defense)

Now, more recently, the Feds have tied firearm ownership to possession of a valid hunting license in the state in which the foreign national resides.

Apparently, Virginia decided that they didn't like that, and banned it at the state level.

 

[T.Lex]

You were just less blunt with your words

Well, when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like an invading horde of evil aliens.

 

[MCgrease08]

So you think the founding fathers would have allowed the British to come over here for a vacation with their rifles for self protection?

Yes. The original settlers brought firearms with them when they first set out to colonize this new world.

The founding fathers were British subjects prior to the Revolutionary War and signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Do you think the concept of self-defense being an inalienable human right endowed by the Creator only emerged post-Revolution?

 

[injb]

Well since they literally did, yes. As well as many other Europeans.

The US, for a good portion of the 1800s, was a hunting destination for wealthy Europeans (and really, probably still is). Foreign nationals, legally in the country, have always been able to purchase and use firearms here (for both hunting and self-defense)

Now, more recently, the Feds have tied firearm ownership to possession of a valid hunting license in the state in which the foreign national resides.

Apparently, Virginia decided that they didn't like that, and banned it at the state level.

Any state actually:

Is a valid hunting license or permit as an exception to the firearms prohibitions on nonimmigrant aliens only valid in the State in which it was issued?

No. A valid, unexpired hunting license or permit from any State within the United States satisfies the hunting license exception to the nonimmigrant alien prohibition. The hunting license or permit does not have to be from the State where the nonimmigrant alien is purchasing the firearm.
Last Reviewed September 15, 2015

Also Virginia only banned it for what they call "assault" weapons: § 18.2-308.2:01

 

[KLB]

Ah, so people coming over to be.....wait for it.....citizens?

So they restricted those only visiting from having arms while here?

 

[seedubs1]

The original settlers were colonizing. I'm talking about people who aren't staying here permanently. And we are post revolution and kicked Britain out. What was done pre-revolution isn't relevant. In those times, people didn't just come over for college or to visit. They were here to live here permanently. If you're here permanently, you should be able to own and have guns here. If you don't live here permanently and aren't a citizen, I don't want you carrying firearms on my countries soil unless it is specifically for tourism hunting.

Also.....lets not get into a religious debate

Yes. The original settlers brought firearms with them when they first set out to colonize this new world.

The founding fathers were British subjects prior to the Revolutionary War and signing of the Declaration of Independence.

Do you think the concept of self-defense being an inalienable human right endowed by the Creator only emerged post-Revolution?

 

[ATOMonkey]

So if he would have bought a 20 round mag he would have been legit?

Seems like much ado about 10 possible bullets.

As for the crown vic, he probably bought a used police car because it was cheap and reliable.

Again, seems like an over reaction to me.

 

[JettaKnight]

I don't think we should allow any non-citizen to have firearms on US soil.

Even Sylvain?

 

[Sylvain]

You expect to be able to go to another country and carry your handgun? Maybe I'd be OK with non-citizens from specific countries if those countries also agreed to honor our right to carry on their land.

But no, as of right now, I don't think non-citizens should be able to be armed on US soil. They choose to come here, they should accept the risk of not being armed here.

Most can't legally arm themselves in their home country. You think a Chinese citizen can legally walk through downtown Hong Kong with a pistol??? Why should they be able to here if they can't even do that in their home country. We should stop allowing non-citizens to arm themselves on our soil.

Only exemption should be for hunting.

Should non-US-citizens also have no freedom of speech and not be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures?

Maybe it's a good thing that people from other countries get more freedom when they're in the States.

That's what the whole "land of the free" thing is all about.

In many countries people don't have freedom of speech of freedom of religion, yet they gain that freedom once they set foot on US soil, even as a tourist.

Shouldn't you be proud that your country offers more freedom that most other countries?

It's ridiculous to allow someone to do things in the US only based on what's legal in his/her country of origin.

Also you are mixing up non-US-citizens who are just tourists and the ones who have legal permanent residency.

A legal permanent resident can legally buy firearms and even get a LTCH in the State of Indiana.

A foreign tourist can't just walk around with a gun.They can rent guns whoever and experience some of that freedom they can't have in their home country.

That's a beautiful thing and something you can't do in many countries.

In some cases, as a US citizen, you can also gain more freedom when you're visiting a foreign country.
Like if you're bewteen the age of 18 and 20 and go to Europe you can order alcohol even though it woud be illegal for you to do that in the US.
The local laws apply to non-citizens, just like it does in the States.

 

[seedubs1]

A Frenchman with a firearm? Something something WWII something something they would be speaking German if it weren't for us something something I don't think they even know how to use a firearm so I'm ok with it.

Even Sylvain?