pensacola shooter bought gun legally

Pink_Vapor said:
@NCLivingBrit what are your thoughts, and have you learned going through theses hoops?
Click to expand...

Different hoops. I'm a resident alien, it looks like these guys are visa holders. Visitors to the US can buy guns, typically for hunting trips etc. I have no idea how taking them back to their country of origin works, sorry. I didn't start buying mine until my residency came through.

Either way we need to wake up to the fact that most Saudis are not out allies or friends.
 
Last edited:
Our constitution and bill of rights applies to the citizens of this country and not foreign nationals. No foreign national should be allowed to purchase or carry any weapon for any purpose on US soil. Once you become a citizen then all rights are guaranteed.
 
Chdamn said:
Our constitution and bill of rights applies to the citizens of this country and not foreign nationals. No foreign national should be allowed to purchase or carry any weapon for any purpose on US soil. Once you become a citizen then all rights are guaranteed.
Click to expand...

I'm not a constitutional scholar or even a shyster lawyer, but I have to disagree with you on this one, Chad. We all talk about the Bill of Rights and remind the progressives that neither the BOR or the government GIVE us our rights; that the BOR simply states our God-given rights to show that they are protected from the government. There's nothing in the BOR or any of the amendments that says freedom of speech, assembly, religion, bearing arms, or protection from unreasonable search & seizure, or protection from self-incrimination, etc. are only for citizens.

If a person's value lies in their human-ness and if human life is sacrosanct, then humans have the right of self-defense.
 
dkmatthews said:
I'm not a constitutional scholar or even a shyster lawyer, but I have to disagree with you on this one, Chad. We all talk about the Bill of Rights and remind the progressives that neither the BOR or the government GIVE us our rights; that the BOR simply states our God-given rights to show that they are protected from the government. There's nothing in the BOR or any of the amendments that says freedom of speech, assembly, religion, bearing arms, or protection from unreasonable search & seizure, or protection from self-incrimination, etc. are only for citizens.

If a person's value lies in their human-ness and if human life is sacrosanct, then humans have the right of self-defense.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what you are talking about and when you have a country with a legal government, with borders et al.

From a strictly fundamental view the founding fathers viewed the rights in the bill of rights to be fundamental and god given. But they added them to the constitution so that they would be protected for the citizens of this country. We did not protect the rights to free speech, bearing arms or any of the others for the rest of the world.

This is a country with laws and borders. I do not believe that our founding fathers, after winning a war against a foreign army, intended for another foreign army to be able to form and arm itself in this country. And legally, those rights are only protected in the constitution for the citizens of this country, not foreign nationals.
 
concepthomes1 said:
I would agree that all humans should enjoy the right to self defense simply because self-preservation is a hard wired mechanism to the human mind.

I'd have to agree with Chad though (huh, didn't realize his name was actually Chad {is that short for Chadwick?}), that in this country, the rights enumerated in the BOR apply to citizens and *if* a foreign national wants to enjoy those rights, then they should become naturalized.

Now, that's probably an r/unpopularopinion since we have a few fine folks here who may not be US citizens but, we can't please everybody.
Click to expand...

It's actually short for Chadham.
 
Not looking for an *argument* (although I enjoy healthy and respectful debates), but I can't recall anything in our constitution saying rights are only for citizens.

If rights WERE only for citizens, then you'd think all of the aliens wouldn't in such a dang hurry to come here illegally.
 
dkmatthews said:
Not looking for an *argument* (although I enjoy healthy and respectful debates), but I can't recall anything in our constitution saying rights are only for citizens.

If rights WERE only for citizens, then you'd think all of the aliens wouldn't in such a dang hurry to come here illegally.
Click to expand...
Argument shmargument. This is debate.

While the bill of rights doesn’t specify that, what should be considered, from a legal standpoint, is that a constitution is a guiding document for a rule of law to govern a country. Our country in this case.

Therefore the rules and laws are put in place to both govern its citizens, punish its citizens and protect its citizens from the government.

While someone is here they have to abide by our laws but, IMO, don’t have protected rights enumerated in a document designed for its citizens.

Edit. After some more thought the constitution and the bill of rights does specify that. It uses the term “the people”. The people are the citizens of the country for which the constitution was written.
 
Last edited:
Chdamn said:
Our constitution and bill of rights applies to the citizens of this country and not foreign nationals. No foreign national should be allowed to purchase or carry any weapon for any purpose on US soil. Once you become a citizen then all rights are guaranteed.
Click to expand...

As a resident alien, I'd be among those stripped of my firearms.
 
NCLivingBrit said:
As a resident alien, I'd be among those stripped of my firearms.
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why we, as a civilized republic, should have the moral certainty and the courage of our convictions to recognize God-given rights are not based upon nationality or where one was born. He created us all - each and every one of us, and we would do well to remember that as we engage in politics. Perhaps the screening process for foreign nationals could be different than it is for citizens - especially in light of a larger body of work (life history?) to be evaluated when looking at citizens compared to foreign nationals who may have only been here for weeks or months, but to deny the right entirely seems unjust and hypocritical.
 
Last edited:
Chdamn said:
Our constitution and bill of rights applies to the citizens of this country and not foreign nationals. No foreign national should be allowed to purchase or carry any weapon for any purpose on US soil. Once you become a citizen then all rights are guaranteed.
Click to expand...

As a resident alien, I'd be among those stripped of my firearms.
 
Visa holders are short term, typically. Not sure I'm good with them being able to buy guns while they are here. Anyone coming to hunt is likely bringing their own.

Resident aliens are different IMO. They have made a commitment to stay a while, possible headed towards citizenship.

But in this case I would bury the left with their own argument. You want aliens to have all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution? Well, there you go. If you don't think that's a good idea, you have some explaining to do.
 
NCLivingBrit said:
As a resident alien, I'd be among those stripped of my firearms.
Click to expand...

Well while that would be unfortunate, just like with any application of law there are alway sad stories of those good people who are effected.

But out of curiosity if the choice when you moved here was become a citizen if you want to own firearms wouldn’t you have pursued naturalization instead of resident alien?
 
dkmatthews said:
Which is precisely why we, as a civilized republic, should have the moral certainty and the courage of our convictions to recognize God-given rights are not based upon nationality or where one was born. He created us all - each and every one of us, and we would do well to remember that as we engage in politics. Perhaps the screening process for foreign nationals could be different than it is for citizens - especially in light of a larger body of work (life history?) to be evaluated when looking at citizens compared to foreign nationals who may have only been here for weeks or months, but to deny the right entirely seems unjust and hypocritical.
Click to expand...

But a republic cannot exist without the rule of law. Which is governed by its founding document, which was set in place by the people to provide a framework to govern the people and limit the authority of that government over the natural rights of the people. Not to protect the rights of other nations or their people.

Until someone goes through the process of becoming a citizen, where in they denounce allegiance to their country of origin and swear allegiance to our land/constitution they are a foreign citizen in our country. They are a potential threat.

Will that stop all of this type of thing? No. But it would curb it greatly.
 
Chdamn said:
Well while that would be unfortunate, just like with any application of law there are alway sad stories of those good people who are effected.

But out of curiosity if the choice when you moved here was become a citizen if you want to own firearms wouldn’t you have pursued naturalization instead of resident alien?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure. While my homeland is a despicable snake pit of multiculturalism and socialist nonsense it is still my homeland. What would I have chosen had I been forced to choose, I'm honestly not sure.

I love this country I do, but it often eats its own young and it's been hard to consider that last step. Also the government makes it an insufferable shitshow compared to just being a resident alien.
 
Last edited:
chiefjason said:
Visa holders are short term, typically. Not sure I'm good with them being able to buy guns while they are here. Anyone coming to hunt is likely bringing their own.
Click to expand...

A lot of them don't. It is often cheaper to buy a hunting rifle here than bring a gun with them. Also, many foreign hunters can't own a gun in their home country.

Just for what it is worth.

In tangential news, I had to turn down a sale of a rifle this weekend to a Mexican man here on a work visa. He didn't have a hunting license, nor did he meet one of the other exceptions.
 
Chdamn said:
Until someone goes through the process of becoming a citizen, where in they denounce allegiance to their country of origin and swear allegiance to our land/constitution they are a foreign citizen in our country. They are a potential threat.
Click to expand...

Just because one denounces former country and swears to USA does not eliminate any threat. Simply denouncing origin country in a citizenship ceremony does not eliminate their citizenship of that country.
 
NCLivingBrit said:
I'm not sure. While my homeland is a despicable snake pit of multiculturalism and socialist nonsense it is still my homeland. What would I have chosen had I been forced to choose, I'm honestly not sure.

I love this country I do, but it often eats its own young and it's been hard to consider that last step. Also the government makes it an insufferable shitshow compared to just being a resident alien.
Click to expand...

You don't have to choose between them as both countries recognize dual citizenship.
 
mrgoob said:
You don't have to choose between them as both countries recognize dual citizenship.
Click to expand...

Well if they do. I don’t think all countries do. But I’m not certain of that.

And of course you can’t have duel citizenship and have access to classified materials. At least that was the case when I joined the corps. I had to renounce my Thai citizenship.
 
mrgoob said:
Just because one denounces former country and swears to USA does not eliminate any threat. Simply denouncing origin country in a citizenship ceremony does not eliminate their citizenship of that country.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
Chdamn said:
Well if they do. I don’t think all countries do. But I’m not certain of that.

And of course you can’t have duel citizenship and have access to classified materials. At least that was the case when I joined the corps. I had to renounce my Thai citizenship.
Click to expand...

I agree, I don't believe all countries do and things have absolutely changed since I became a citizen back in the 70's.
Canada, Great Britain and the USA all recognize each other and one can have dual/triple citizenship.
 
mrgoob said:
Canada, Great Britain and the USA all recognize each other and one can have dual/triple citizenship.
Click to expand...
sounds like a tax nightmare.
If CA and GB both take 40-50% ea, and the US wants 24%... where do you get that extra 4-24%
 
NCLivingBrit said:
...the government makes it an insufferable shitshow compared to just being a resident alien.
Click to expand...

'N that burns my ass. I know several liberty loving folks that would dearly love to participate in the American dream. They can't even get work visas, let alone move here, while we're inundated with Indian or Chinese H2Bs, Paki convenience store owners, Senegalese trinket merchants & Somali meat packers.

Hate that when someone wants to nut up & be an American, the .gov goes out of its way to make it overly difficult & expensive.
 
Last edited:
Chdamn said:
Well while that would be unfortunate, just like with any application of law there are alway sad stories of those good people who are effected.

But out of curiosity if the choice when you moved here was become a citizen if you want to own firearms wouldn’t you have pursued naturalization instead of resident alien?
Click to expand...

It is not an instant either/or decision between naturalization and being a resident alien. A non-US-citizen has to be a permanent legal resident (e.g. Green Card holder) for at least 5 years before they are eligible to apply for naturalization.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom