Should it be legal for foreign nationals to own & carry guns?

[The Bubba Effect]

Unalienable rights are inconvenient, aren't they? But you either believe in them, or you don't. In your latter example, 50K armed Chinese nationals would be surrounded by 15M armed Americans. As long as they behaved themselves in accordance with US laws, there wouldn't be any need to worry about them, would there? And if they did misbehave, how would that be different from an equivalent number of US citizens doing the same? Both groups would have to be brought to account, presumably, for your purposes by use of force.

To be clear, I am stating that a nation has the right to resist invasion from a foreign army.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Maybe we should take away ALL their rights. No habeus corpus, no freedom of speech, no protection from unreasonable search/seizure, no right against self-incrimination, maybe non-citizens should have to quarter troops in their homes.

I'm sure you'd be just fine with that.

The fact that you think non-citizens don't have rights means you don't believe in rights. You believe in privileges. You want to know the difference? Rights are held by all men. Privileges are only afforded to some.


Your opinion runs counter to everything this country stands for and makes me ashamed to call you my countryman. You and some others in this thread.

You're right see above.
I make no qualms about being a strong isolationist, nor will I apologize for my stance.
If my opinion run counter to everything this courty stands for.... you'll have to qualify. In practice or face value? Because in practice, my opinion IS exactly how the country was founded upon, ran, and continues to endure.
Rights are hard enough for Americans to come by, so why extend them completely to those that have no stake in losing them?

As I stated earlier, this argument is a moot point, as the USSC has already declared that foreign nationals have the same protections as Americans BUT, what IF they ruled otherwise? Would states be allowing foreign nationals to take advantace of in state college tutions, certain social programs, etc? Would we be experienceing "brain drain," as foreign students (taking seats of American students) educated in America, after graduating, take their skills to their own lands (ie our competitors)? I'm thinking probably not.

Again, as I have stated, I am not against foreign nations possessing firearms, universally. I think that some, heck most, should probably be extended the privilege, however, I think that they should be throughly vetted prior to their attainment of a firearm; something I think all Americans should be exempted from. It certainly would not sit well with me, if a guy 3 hours off the plane from Liberia, Austria, Thailand, or Latvia high tailed it to the 1500, and bought a AK47 right off the shelves.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Unalienable rights are inconvenient, aren't they? But you either believe in them, or you don't. In your latter example, 50K armed Chinese nationals would be surrounded by 15M armed Americans. As long as they behaved themselves in accordance with US laws, there wouldn't be any need to worry about them, would there? And if they did misbehave, how would that be different from an equivalent number of US citizens doing the same? Both groups would have to be brought to account, presumably, for your purposes by use of force.

5 Chinese nationals rampaging with AK47s, strategically placed in 5 different malls would be enough to put a nation of 300M in gridlock.

 

[The Bubba Effect]

5 Chinese nationals rampaging with AK47s, strategically placed in 5 different malls would be enough to put a nation of 300M in gridlock.

5? Why not 50,000?

That's what we're talking about.

Does a nation not have the right to resist the forced entry and operation of armed foreign nationals? That is one of the few things the federal government is really supposed to do.

 

[bingley]

Rights are hard enough for Americans to come by, so why extend them completely to those that have no stake in losing them?

They do have a stake in losing the rights. How could they not? If they should find themselves in any sort of legal situation, whether as alleged perps or victims, they definitely will be needing those rights. It doesn't make sense otherwise.

Let's put ourselves in their position. Would you go sightseeing in a country that does not even promise to protect your human rights, much less actually protect your human rights? How about if they do not even make the pretense of giving you a fair trial should you be implicated in a crime somehow? It is actually the international practice to guarantee visitors the same basic legal protections afforded the citizens. Losing such protections is a sign of a failed state. Now gun ownership may be another matter, but I think this conversation has evolved to a discussion about basic rights.

As I stated earlier, this argument is a moot point, as the USSC has already declared that foreign nationals have the same protections as Americans BUT, what IF they ruled otherwise? Would states be allowing foreign nationals to take advantace of in state college tutions, certain social programs, etc? Would we be experienceing "brain drain," as foreign students (taking seats of American students) educated in America, after graduating, take their skills to their own lands (ie our competitors)? I'm thinking probably not.

I'm not sure what you're arguing, but here's a side rant. We are experiencing brain drain because immigration isn't allowing enough of the American-educated foreign nationals to stay, work, and naturalize. This is especially bad in the high tech sector.

Incidentally, they're not taking the seats of American students. We Americans are too smart to become engineers and actually make stuff. We become lawyers and bankers and just commit highway robbery in plain sight. Then we make the government give us a big bailout for robbing people blind. So if you look at JD and MBA graduations, and you'll see plenty of Americans. If you look at PhD graduations at engineering schools, you'll see plenty of foreign students. We need to change our priorities as a nation, but that's for another thread.

It certainly would not sit well with me, if a guy 3 hours off the plane from Liberia, Austria, Thailand, or Latvia high tailed it to the 1500, and bought a AK47 right off the shelves.

I see what you're saying. I don't have much to add, but you reminded me of something. I have met a woman from the rugged highlands of Thailand. She started carrying an AK47 at the age of 12. I don't mean she had an AK at home. She had to carry it every day when she went out *by herself*, to protect herself against robbers, rapists, and commies. She joked that she could take guns apart and put them back together blindfolded. Damn.

Da Bing

 

[Sylvain]

Yes. The right to keep and bear arms is not a mere privilege of U.S. citizens, it is a natural right.
The fact that others are not protected from the infringement of that right via the 2A is no reason to condone infringement or consider that we are somehow "granted" the right by our citizenship.

I tottaly agree witht hat!
All the citizens in the world have the right to protect themself, that's a natural right and it's not because you are a non-US citizen that you shouldn't have that right.

So to the OP, if you visit a country where you dont have the right to defend yourself unless you are a citizen of that country.Would you give up your natural right to self protection because according to the law of that country this right is only given to the citizens?

Also I must say that the OP is wrong when he says that "Under current law, as long as they are in the process of becoming a citizen (have a green card, will naturalize in five years)" a non-US-citizen can own and carry a gun.
That is not true.
Yes you currently need to have a "green card" but that doesnt have to be "in the process of becoming a citizen".You can be a "green card" holder all your life without asking for the citizenship if you want.Many people do so.
Also you will not naturilize in five years automaticly, after five years you are allowed to ask for the citizenship, nothing more.
Then you may or may not get it, it depends on many things like how well you do at the interview and such.

 

[GREEN607]

If people are going to be armed, they need to be able to vote. If people are going to be able to vote, they need to be armed.


An unarmed voting public will inevitably come to be ruled through force. An armed voting public can demand compliance with the electoral process.

An armed population which cannot vote is left without the electoral process to seek justice. Denied that civil mechanism, they will be courted more and more to employ their arms in their pursuit of justice.


Or, think of it this way:


If 50,000 armed American citizens gathered in Illinois for three months of camping and hiking, they would be within their rights even if the the government or the general populace got freaked out about it.

If 50,000 armed Chinese nationals gathered in Illinois for three months of camping and hiking, the citizens of The United States would be within their rights to disallow this if they wanted to.

Guests do not enjoy the same rights as Hosts.

And I agree with this. Except for "foreign dignitaries" visitors to the U.S. do not qualify for the same rights as U.S. citizens. The same 'protections, under the law' if they are unarmed, and only then.....may be a different issue.

 

[bingley]

IAlso I must say that the OP is wrong when he says that "Under current law, as long as they are in the process of becoming a citizen (have a green card, will naturalize in five years)" a non-US-citizen can own and carry a gun.
That is not true.
Yes you currently need to have a "green card" but that doesnt have to be "in the process of becoming a citizen".You can be a "green card" holder all your life without asking for the citizenship if you want.Many people do so.
Also you will not naturilize in five years automaticly, after five years you are allowed to ask for the citizenship, nothing more.
Then you may or may not get it, it depends on many things like how well you do at the interview and such.

Looks like Sylvain has the right idea... again. And you can quote me on that.

 

[Sylvain]

I have no problem with Legal Foreign Nationals Owning/using/carrying Firearms.

I see so many people on this forum that think otherwise, that's sad.
They think that immigration is a bad thing because, I guess, for them immigration means ILLEGAL immigration only.
And im not even talking about legal non-immigrants, that is tourists.
Not everybody that is not a US citizen is here illegaly, stealing your money and jobs and only coming in the country to use social services.

I am myself NOT a US citizen and yet I pay taxes in the US, I do not work in the US (I dont came here to "steal" any american job), I have a free health care in my native country so im not getting ANY social benefits from the US Govt., I come and stay in this country LEGALLY, I never committed a crime in the US or in any other country.


So for some reasons some of you think that I should not be allowed to own and carry guns to defend myself, my familly and all the (US or not US) friends that I know or any strangers in the street ... just because im not a US citizen?

 

[rugertoter]

I voted no. Become a US citizen, then get the benefits that go along with it.

 

[Sylvain]

I voted no. Become a US citizen, then get the benefits that go along with it.

So defending yourself and familly is a "benefit" only given by your citizenship and not a basic right?

Non-US-citizens are good enough to pay taxes but not good enough to have the right to protect themselves?

If I get shot I couldnt pay taxes anymore, good thing for you I can legally own guns with the current laws so I can live another day to pay more taxes and help rebuild the US economy.You are welcome.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I would like to make sure that those reading this haven't skipped over the part where I stated that if foreign nationals are to be allowed to carry firearms, a thorough check of them should be required. And there's the problem. Background checks that many states require to purchase a firearm are almost solely based upon the local sources (i.e. NCIC). Often, actually more than often, nations have no reciprocity in regards to their citizen's personal or criminal histories (how would you like to be on file in France?). That said states that allow foreign nationals to possess firearms, must run them through local criminal/mental background services, which often end in a result of "nothing found," or "not on file." Thus, in many places, it is FAR and AWAY easier for a foreign national to obtain a firearm, than you or I..... So tell me again who the Constitution was written for? The guy from Slovakia, with the incomplete "file" gets preference over the American citizen? Yeah, that doesn't sit right with me.

This, lil Foreign National "loophole," has become such an issue, that the vaunted Utah CCW, that many love so much, has been changed to exclude Foreign Nationals, for this very reason.

 

[jeremy]

I would like to make sure that those reading this haven't skipped over the part where I stated that if foreign nationals are to be allowed to carry firearms, a thorough check of them should be required. And there's the problem. Background checks that many states require to purchase a firearm are almost solely based upon the local sources (i.e. NCIC). Often, actually more than often, nations have no reciprocity in regards to their citizen's personal or criminal histories (how would you like to be on file in France?). That said states that allow foreign nationals to possess firearms, must run them through local criminal/mental background services, which often end in a result of "nothing found," or "not on file." Thus, in many places, it is FAR and AWAY easier for a foreign national to obtain a firearm, than you or I..... So tell me again who the Constitution was written for? The guy from Slovakia, with the incomplete "file" gets preference over the American citizen? Yeah, that doesn't sit right with me.

This, lil Foreign National "loophole," has become such an issue, that the vaunted Utah CCW, that many love so much, has been changed to exclude Foreign Nationals, for this very reason.

You do realize that some who possess a Valid Visa has gone through a Very thorough Background Check...
Depending on the Country of Origin, this is partially the Reason for the Delay times for Visa Issuance...
And goes through one an a cyclic basis also as long as they are a Visa Holder...

So now what about your Background check talking points.

 

[Sylvain]

You do realize that some who possess a Valid Visa has gone through a Very thorough Background Check...
Depending on the Country of Origin, this is partially the Reason for the Delay times for Visa Issuance...
And goes through one an a cyclic basis also as long as they are a Visa Holder...

So now what about your Background check talking points.

Jeremy's right.The background check for a non US citizen to get a Visa or a green card is WAY more thorough than the background check a US citizen would have to go through to buy a gun in a store (just a two minutes phone call to the FBI).
To get a Visa the local US embassy checks your criminal record with the local authorities, also bank account check, familly history check (they will know if any family member has been arrested), driving record, your past visits to other countries, if you have ever been arrested in the US etc ...
For the green card holders they have to see a doctor to check their mental health (thing a US citizen doesnt have to do to buy a gun).

 

[Kutnupe14]

You do realize that some who possess a Valid Visa has gone through a Very thorough Background Check...
Depending on the Country of Origin, this is partially the Reason for the Delay times for Visa Issuance...
And goes through one an a cyclic basis also as long as they are a Visa Holder...

So now what about your Background check talking points.

You mean after social security, education, welfare, USPS, the health dept, and the IRS, the Feds actually do something right????

Apparently Utah didn't get the memo.

...but to illustrate one of their most glaring failures, I'll give you 2 numbers

9 -11

somehow 19 people slipped through the cracks of that "thorough" system, and we all know how that ended.

...you were saying?

 

[Sylvain]

You mean after social security, education, welfare, USPS, the health dept, and the IRS, the Feds actually do something right????

Apparently Utah didn't get the memo.

...but to illustrate one of their most glaring failures, I'll give you 2 numbers

9 -11

somehow 19 people slipped through the cracks of that "thorough" system, and we all know how that ended.

...you were saying?

So you are saying that because 19 people went through a background check and ended up killing people we should stop selling guns to other people that have to go through the same background check?

Following the same logic ...

Some US citizens legally buy guns and kill people every year (probably way more than 19 each year), so we should also stop selling guns to every US citizen because the system failled more than once in the past?



A background check is what it is, it is to check what happend in the past, not what will happend in the future.
You can have never been arrested before, so you can legally buy guns, and one day you go all crazy and kill 50 people.
That happend in the past, it will happen in the future again.
Yet that shouldnt prevent other people (US citizens or not) to own guns and to defend themselves against those crazy people that become killers?

 

[Kutnupe14]

So you are saying that because 19 people went through a background check and ended up killing people we should stop selling guns to other people that have to go through the same background check?

Following the same logic ...

Some US citizens legally buy guns and kill people every year (probably way more than 19 each year), so we should also stop selling guns to every US citizen because the system failed more than once in the past?



s?

Nope, they're Americans, their rights are set in stone.

 

[Bill of Rights]

First off, there is no such thing as an "unalienable right," nor is there such a thing as "natural law," both are social constructs based on religion and/or morality. Meaning, there is no diference between rights and privileges. They both are dependent on who decides what you are capable of doing. It just so happens, that he founders created a document which grants you certain rights which they say they'll protect.

Had the Constitution not been written, those natural rights would be extended to you on the whim of a more powerful person. No where in history has the concept of "unalienable rights," or "natural law" been realized... ever. Even within nature (where this whole natural right mumbo jumbo comes from), there is no parity among species. The strongest, fastest, and most intelligent regularly exert their will upon members of their same species.

Take it for what it is. Rights are given by those with the strength to protect them. Natural rights apply to all correct? And yet there are millions upon millions throughout our history that those rights did not apply. Why was there a hitch in the system? The same people that spoke of natural rights regularly denied them to others.

With that said, all the "rights" you hold dear, are simple "privileges" given to you by the "powers that be," nothing more. It's sobering, but very correct.

Unalienable rights do not exist? I believe our Founders and Framers, and the philosophers on whose experience and thoughts and wisdom they drew, would differ with you.

You have a right to your life. Incumbent upon you, then, is the duty to defend that life, and therefore, the RKBA applies to that defense. Did they deny some of those rights to others? Yes, sadly, they did, but a right denied does not simply disappear, any more than a person's humanity is not lost solely by someone denying it. You seem to be advocating "might makes right"... that is, that the strongest among us have the right to take from anyone else whatever they wish, solely because of their physical strength. I hope you never have to go on the witness stand with that attitude.

The final analysis? The Founders were not perfect, no, but they were far wiser than most of us today.

Even with their failings, I'll continue to believe what they set down for us rather than "Kutnupe's Law".

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bunnykid68]

Bill makes a good point as usual. Just because a lot of out rights are infringed upon does not make them any less our rights. Currently it is a privilege to even own a firearm in Illinois even though we all know it is a right to own them.

 

[jeremy]

You mean after social security, education, welfare, USPS, the health dept, and the IRS, the Feds actually do something right????

Apparently Utah didn't get the memo.

...but to illustrate one of their most glaring failures, I'll give you 2 numbers

9 -11

somehow 19 people slipped through the cracks of that "thorough" system, and we all know how that ended.

...you were saying?

WOW...

Really let us invoke the Solemness of 9-11 to win my Argument...


Those 19 Persons who slipped through the Crack were not a Failure of the Visa Program, they were a Failure of Law Enforcement mainly. They were operating on Expired Student Visas, thereby being Illegal Immigrants. So, once again between the Inability of all the Federal LEAs to communicate, and the inability of Local LEA to detain, and begin the deportation process of Illegal Immigrants Our Immigration System was exploited by Trained Agents of a Combatant Enemy infiltrated Our Borders and Learned from Us how to Harm Us...

So where is the System truly broken at?!