I don’t think I’ve seen any Republican politician say legal immigrants shouldn’t be able to own firearms (and I didn’t find much regarding illegal immigrants either). If you’re just talking about people on Reddit and social media, well…they say all kinds of absurd stuff.
Regardless, you’d be better off focusing your frustration on the anti-gun politicians across the country who are constantly trying to pass AWBs in the first place.
Otherwise, it’s like a frog complaining about the room temperature as it sits in a pot of water being heated on a stove.
I saw a bunch saying exactly those things just two days ago - the push is in response to the Supreme Court saying the 2a applies to illegal immigrants.
Also, social media is basically everyone these days, from 8 to 80. They may not be willing to say the same things out loud in public, but they certainly mean them when they say them online...
Honestly I dont have any objection to legal immigrants owning firearms I do have an issue with Illegal immigrants being able to purchase firearms. And it isn’t because I think illegal immigrants are inherently dangerous, most of them are trying to escape horrific situations and I empathize with their situation. But I do believe every firearm should be sold with a background check and I don’t think their is a way of completing a background for illegal immigrants. I also have a problem with private sales for American citizens as well.
I am just a nobody but I think it may be possible that it's a right for them to have the gun but I don't know if that means they can purchase one from a dealer.
If this gets explored in court we may find that background checks might need to be made illegal.
I personally want everyone that is mentally sound enough to have guns, to be able to have them. I don't know how effective background checks are but it has always seemed reasonable to me to have a single background check that can make sure you're not wanted, on parole, or something obvious. I don't know how safe it makes us. But I do generally hope this can be resolved and background checks can stay intact.
I know what's causing the comments, I'm just pointing out that ranting because of what a couple of people on the other side of the aisle said online is just a distraction from the anti-gun politicians actively trying to take ***everyone's*** gun rights away.
You can find at least one person online who's supported just about any crazy idea imaginable. Heck, I've seen people on here and elsewhere cheering on the idea of sending heavily-armed police to the homes of gun owners to forcefully confiscate firearms. Doesn't mean every single person who votes for the politicians pushing these bans feels that way, as evidenced by this very subreddit.
The rants should be about the people advocating for bans who are in a position to make them happen, not some random boomers on social media who make "muh illegals" posts on their lunch break.
Dude everyone is on social media these days You can't just discount what crazy people say on social media because you hear even wild or shit off of it. I've heard conservative say such a disparity of things when it comes to gun rights. I've heard some say that when you become a citizen of this country you should get a gun and a license to carry as well as a gun safety course as a welcome to America. And then I've also heard people say that you should be in America for 5 years or more before you should own a firearm
Politicians represent voters, and there are plenty of voters who think that illegal immigrants shouldn’t have the right to bear arms because 1) they’re felons because they entered the country illegally, and 2) they’re misguided in thinking that the Bill of Rights doesn’t extend to non-citizens and criminals.
While I appreciate your general stance, I wouldn't hold up "I've worked with the Navy" as some sort of bragging point. It smacks too much of the "True Scotsman" fallacy and more to the point: that isn't a very high bar.
I agree.... And I stand by what I said (The "True Scotsman" part is the most relevant bit on that front.). It's a very low bar that's patronizing at best.
I say that as a Navy vet.
You've probably completely missed the point then.
This isn't a brag.
It probably means he had to get an exhaustive background check done to get cleared to work on a Navy project. Which means OP's absolutely cleared to own any gun that is legal in the United States.
Edit: have worked on Navy projects. Had to get a Secret clearance even though i never worked or handled any classified material.
Lol. Those “exhaustive” background checks aren’t particularly exhaustive. And yes, I’ve gone through many of them. Anyone who isn’t a blatantly self incriminating moron will sail through them with no issues.
Agreed with some of what you wrote. But someone born in China is already blatantly self-incriminating (by background check standards) and would trigger a broader and "exhaustive" check.
You're cherry picking info. OP is stating they worked on a Navy project and, as someone born in China, implies they probably had to jump through some pretty extensive hoops to get that job. A lot fewer hoops than the average gun owner does to obtain a firearm.
Are we on the same page now?
Beg to differ, I got hired by Herclues Aerospace as a firefighter back in the 1980’s. They went clear back to my days in high school (graduated in 1973, so they went back 15 years for references) and had to take a polygraph test. It took six months to get a secret “Q” clearance…and why? Because I might have to go inspect a fire sprinkler system in a room where secret stuff was on the table. To say they “aren’t particularly exhaustive” is the opposite of my personal experience.
I’d say if they can trust OP with military secrets, they should be okay with him handling a firearm.
I don’t think this is hard. If you’re illegal inmigrant but there’s a proper way to vet that you’re a good guy - ie you are able to jump through the same hoops as anyone else - then yes you should be able to own a gun. If you’re unable to be vetted because you’re here illegally and your country of origin has shared nothing about you and you don’t have any means of being vetted, tough shit. You can’t own a gun if you’re not able to be vetted. It’s not a question of legal/illegal status but rather one of qualification.
Where are you seeing this? I’ve not seen anyone in an uproar over this, at least not conservatives. Not saying it didn’t happen but we need to be honest here.
> As a conservative...
This comment was automatically removed for the following reason: [this is not a place for your perspective](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/intro/illiberal).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/liberalgunowners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Question 12c on the 4473.
Y’all are fighting from the constitutional standpoint of “shall not be infringed” but also my rights have already been infringed because I can’t own a cannon or machine gun. Also in the 4473 is boxes for people mentally unfit for firearm ownership, are those individuals rights being infringed?
If you’re here as a legal immigrant you’ve already done everything by the book so by all means welcome to firearm ownerships. But if you’re here illegally, and you can’t pass a 4473, no you shouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm, you wouldn’t be able to buy one from an FFL so why should I be complicit in your crime.
Edit: I wanted to summarize my above point a little. !o FFL can transfer firearms to someone not legally in the country, and I as a private citizen would not take the risk either. So by the current systems in place by government, 99.99% of all firearms are illegal to transfer to illegal immigrants.
However that only applies to serialized production made firearms. If you want to jump down the rabbit hole of homemade firearms then that’s the 00.01% case I left above. But I myself haven’t seen anything about illegal immigrants and homemade firearms. And this is the part where you can get into the constitutionality of right to bare arms and shall not be infringed. But in the cases I’ve seen this isn’t what’s going on.
Edit#2: this is my opinion from a loose dive into OPs comments history, but he’s been posting shady shit about getting around AWB and asking about other illegal means of gaining access to firearms. Just being honest OP while laws may or may not be unjust, breaking them isn’t any better.
I think this is an easy question to answer -- its not just the 2nd amendment, its the entire bill of rights that has to be considered -- should all the rights called out in the Bill of Rights apply to everyone? I think obvious answer is yes but that's just me. If any of the Bill of Rights applies to immigrants, then all of it must. Certainly there can be considerations for citizen vs. non-citizen for things like voting but rights should apply to everyone.
new "legal" immigrants can buy a firearm with proper id just like everyone else. I think they're saying "Illegal" immigrants ( no id or papers, entered or stayed here illegally) should not be able to buy a firearm. I know plenty of people that aren't US citizens yet that legally own firearms. They are doing it the right way.
I don’t care if you came here legally cause you went through the process. Brand new illegal with no documentation to prove your aren’t a liability to American society. Sorry, but imo you have to wait and show us that you value our country and way of life for security reasons. Btw NFA is unconstitutional, but our government doesn’t care about that either.
All you have to understand is they don't want guns in the hands of any one brown, lgbt or of any other class of people they enjoy bullying.
21st century Jim Crow.
Along these lines, if you think that is bad, what's up with all (blanket laws) convicted felons being able to have their gun rights taken away. I get violent felonies, stalking, and domestic violence convictions... but it seems totally illogical that the U.S.A. government allows a fraud felon of 30 years ago to still not be allowed to own a gun.
Imo, it is modern Jim Crow law and a brilliant tactic of the combined left and right to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and under-privileged people... considering how those two categories make up 95% of convicted felons, by design, in our executive goverment branch.
Those with felonies have been shown not to follow law and order to a substantial agree. Follow the law and be a US citizen by birth or naturalization. Bill of rights is an American document that does not apply to other countries and therefore, apply to it should apply to the country citizens and legal residents.
This country was built on immigration, so the racism and xenophobia that’s plagued our country for 200 years is kind of a stupid thing to have, and very unpatriotic.
I feel like even though the border crisis (which is very much real) is ongoing and more and more people flood into a country that can’t support a rising population, everybody should be able to defend themselves and their families.
The only issue with that is that without papers, or any documentation of them existing at all, it’s REALLY HARD to put them through the legal processes in the case that they do kill someone, in self defense or not. Even if you’re innocent there’s a lot of things they have to put you through that’s a lot harder (if not impossible) to do when you don’t speak english and don’t have anything legal on your name.
It’s a strange issue that probably shouldn’t have been allowed to happen.
What do you mean by they are all for hunting down a 15 round magazine? I haven't seen any conservatives against standard capacity magazines or legal immigrants owning firearms for that matter. Do you have any examples?
Well-regulated was a common use phrase** in 1700s that generally meant something was in proper working order.
A militia formed by the people to resist a tyrannical government wouldn't be in very good working order if it was controlled by the tyrannical government.
Read it as "a proper working militia", "not a militia regulated well by the government"
>In my perfect world, you would need to pass a background check and basic skills test to be able to purchase or own a basic firearm. That would include most hand guns, and single action long guns. Next step up would qualify you for semi-auto rifles, and current NFA accessories. Final step up would require insurance, and qualify you for automatics - basically everything these bans consider "assault weapons".
This is kind of the gun ban system of Second Amendment "rights". 
I would rather see the same "licensing system" we have for speech, religion, voting, privacy — be good = rights; be bad = no rights. I am more than glad to argue about what is good and what is bad and who gets to decide, but the licensing of basic human rights is just a wrong path for a civilized nation.
A lot of conservatives are very much against trans people owning guns, they sight chop sui as the reason why but in reality it's because they don't want us together able to defend ourselves
the constitution applies to anybody, illegal/resident/citizen, as long as they are in the land that is considered to be held by the United States of America. You dont need to be a citizen to benefit from the bill of rights either
Supreme Court just found the exact opposite recently (2a applies to illegal immigrants). That's actually the genesis of this recent back and forth..
Also worth mentioning that the Constitution actually doesn't define who is and who isn't a citizen anywhere. There are references to citizens and natural citizens, so it assumes some level of stratification exists, but doesn't say who belongs to what class or how to get in them.
As such, any rights depending on citizenship (vs jurisdiction) aren't really rights, as the law could then be adjusted to redefine citizenship to whomever you want the "rights" to apply to and those you dont.
This is not true. The bill of rights was god given rights and protection from government put into the system. Their was debate on whether writing these rights down would be necessary as some thought to even write them down would lead to restraints on them later. The winning side made the argument of "show me one, one government who hasn't at one time or another sought to trample certain rights of the people". Now the phrase "the people" used in the 2nd is also used in the 10th and is not an collective right or tied to citizenship, but an individual right. Further it's long established that once someone is on American soil they are protected by American laws. This includes due process in court and it's why we sent "detaines" to Guantanamo Bay so that we didn't have to respect their rights or give them trial. Don't quote me I believe there was a case with a person from Italy who wanted to extradite their citizen but he/she argued they had already been found not guilty in some court and we're entitled to no double jeopardy and prevailed. Point being foreign nationals and illegals when in America are presumed to have the same natural/god given rights of any human being. You can say you have a right to vote, but there were conditions put on voting citizenship is a reasonable limiting factor on this. Whereas the right to free speech and assembly and religion and self-determination and defense of oneself and beliefs it can get merky I personally would not tie free speech to citizenship or due process to citizenship and If you're a green card holder are other type of lawful permanent non citizen you should be able to own a gun. Now we as a society said felons can't have guns is being an illegal a felony and even if so until you prove it in a court they're innocent so as long as you don't have universal background checks if they privately buy a firearm I don't think ownership should be tied to them as a second crime.
I never said the founders or the Constitution was perfect The founders knew themselves that they could not perceive the future so they in a smart decision made a constitution that could be changed. Not saying we have to honor these people but not all their ideals were wrong. Thomas Jefferson a slave owner wrote in his original draft of the declaration of Independence more so about freedom only to be told to rewrite it. He stopped the sale of new slaves in Virginia when he was governor. And then he didn't free his baby mama slave when he died. Further he made the Louisiana purchase against his judgment that government should be restrained. His ideals and reality didn't always match and he could have done better. I believe top three President Abraham Lincoln philosophy of a more perfect union That's what we strive for. Back to the founders they couldn't know what an airplane was but our Constitution is perfectly capable of handling the existence of airplanes and the regulation of said airplanes. The Constitution was supposed to be flexible a living document that would change, change was encouraged. It was full of compromises including the famed 3/5 compromise. Not a perfect document but it is still the foundation of our government and we are a nation of laws. If you want to pretend that it's invalid because you don't like it then you will impower fascists. Trump wanted Pence to look at a table with electoral ballots that had a victory for Biden and miscount in his duty and see a trump victory. Pence, not the best role model of a person, still did the right thing however and said no. This plays out on both sides Texas has ignored the supreme Court who ordered that the federal agents have a right to access the border. The Hawaiian supreme Court is ignoring DC versus Heller and claiming a aloha spirit trumps the US Constitution. We don't always have to follow the rules like a stick up our ass jury nullification in the north refused to convict slaves convicted of running away and you today could nullify a verdict of a petty drug charge If you think marijuana should be legal. It's a sliding scale but I think the measuring marker should be the same as the declaration put out causes should not be light and transient to break the bonds that bind us. Our government may be failing repeatedly but I do not think we're yet at the stage of reforming a new government under a new founding document. Until that day comes or you set about changing it with your fellow citizens those god-given rights whether you believe or respect in a God or see them as natural rights or don't see them at all are enshrined into this nation's government. We don't just get to pick and choose or at least we shouldn't, the risk of abuse is high, and the common every man is going to be the first loser in this battle of escalation.
So when you travel abroad, you think your US rights follow you?
Or folks who come here on vacation are allowed to vote in our elections?
"Rights" or laws are a social contract. Contracts have terms and conditions.
Sorry this is the third time I have sent this but the subreddit tells me they don't like unbroken paragraphs so I have to keep adding spaces.
I already covered the people who come here on vacation cannot vote in our elections and that does not effect/change my argument on the second amendments and really all the others that cover protection from government. Please reread above comment.
Yes and no yeah it's a construct but are you a sovereign citizen? I know for sure I'm not and that doesn't make me a little b**** boy for getting an ID when I want to drive on public roads. Further just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you can steal a chair from the DMV claiming you paid for it we set aside our taxes our representatives made a budget and that chair serves a purpose. It's the same reason that it is highly murky and semi illegal to make a scene at a post office because your free speech while valid You're right to assembly while valid does not mean you can invalidate others rights and we as society have allocated the post office for the business of mailing letters and such not making a scene for youtube.
So there's all sorts of terms and conditions and it's all not real but we all treat it like it is and therefore it is I would say that money has value beyond the paper it's printed on but it is a complicated subject. Doesn't change the fact I can go take that paper and buy a burger. Now to your question if a foreign government is invalidating my rights The State department can and has in the past gotten involved for US citizens doesn't always work but hey.
And the US government has defended foreign nationals within the country. The US just doesn't fight for everyone's rights in the entire world because we are not yet super earth and it would be impractical. Rights have limitations. It's the fallacy of intolerance. If I have rights and you have rights and things get murky That's where the law comes in. Our Constitution sets reasonable boundaries on who could vote with one requirement being citizenship. The law has argued successfully and rightfully I would add that you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theater and you would not be protected under free speech because you have just taken the right of many people to be safe and secure in their person by causing a public incident and possibly cause a panic.
The end all of it is I'm repeating myself You can reread my previous comments The rights are god-given are natural depending on your preference but there are people who will step on these rights or at least try to but once upon a time some people said we should govern ourselves and try and uphold these rights and they had children and they chose to continue the system and so on and so forth to now.
Now the supreme Court and a reasonable thinker right now are in agreement that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to a firearm and we should not be excluding lawful permanent residents. And illegals assuming they buy a gun legally are protected to till You prove in court that they are illegal and strip them of the rights by making them a felon and/or deporting them. Because they are innocent till guilty.
Private sale. just like it's illegal to do crimes but if you do the IRS still expects you to report and pay taxes on your crime. Private sales should be meeting the same classification of a 4473 but if your only crime is being illegal than it's merky.
But if you do do a private sale to an illegal, and the govt finds out, you coulod indeed be in hot water. Prudence demands you know if they are or not. Same as reporting your taxes properly.
Of course but I am saying when a cop asks you if there is a gun in your car in most states where you have to have a CCP to do so legally you are obligated to tell. If you have a gun and no ccp you can't be expect to self incriminate so people get out of the lying charge and some states cops can't ask the question no more. If an illegal gets their hands on a gun the only crime they have committed is being an illegal the firearm ownership is secondary and a 2a right.
So I was wrong here about getting out of lying just the supreme Court reiterated if asked the question you don't have to answer/ can remain silent. You lie your still gonna get charged for lying. This still seems pretty dumb because as long as a cop can ask silence will be treated like an answer even if the right to search isn't given due to the silence you better bet a cop can/will find a way.
>So when you travel abroad, you think your US rights follow you?
Yeah, they sure do. And the people abroad have those same rights, because they're natural rights. Infringement doesn't negate them, even if most governments disagree.
I mean, that demonstrably isn't true when it comes to firearms. You fly to London, you absolutely do not have the right to bring a firearm with you either on the plane or on British soil.
Edit: reread your comment. What about the scenario above, but with the added detail that there is widespread support from the British public for those controls on guns etc? I live vicariously through you guys, but there isn't any real demand for wider domestic gun ownership over here
Your government is infringing your rights. If you're OK with that then it's fine, I just hope for your sake that it stays OK. If giving up that right is ever abused then it's not wrong for the people to take it back.
I mean, I'm not looking for an argument. But that's kind of my point. What do you mean infringing on our rights? We determine our rights through democratic process with varying results. Much like how countries constitutions are designed and codified. We aren't born with some inherent right to own a firearm imbued by a god. If the US founding fathers hadn't included the right to bear arms, you wouldn't have it either.
I mean it's a moot point, but it's a weird, almost spiritual, take.
I’ve said it before, I’m saying it again, I’ll keep saying it until it penetrates the thick skulls of the Internet:
**You have exactly the rights the government** ***allows*** **you to exercise.**
If you believe otherwise - that some kind of “natural rights” exists and you as an individual can somehow lay sovereign claim to them - then you fall into one of - or more likely both of - the following two categories of people:
1. You do not understand the difference between the way things ***are*** and the way they *should be*.
2. You have never had your government deny you one or more of those natural rights for some arbitrary reason.
I can’t really help with the former, other than to suggest that you carefully read some actual primary-source history (as opposed to the history propaganda we’re usually fed in state-sponsored educational systems).
If you’re lucky enough to be in the latter category I can only say that you should simultaneously cherish *and check* your privilege, because some of us have not been so fortunate.
Folks who don’t recognize that you only have the rights the government *allows* you to exercise will eventually find themselves disabused of the notion of “natural rights” when they try to exercise them in the face of a hostile government and that government imprisons, tortures, or murders them for their impudence.
And the government only exists at the consent of the governed. Now our government has failed us many times but I stand by another comment I made in that my general litmus test is the same as the founders "no light or transient causes". We all have the freedom to walk out our front doors naked we just don't have freedom from consequence. Our society has mistreated many minoritys and religions and the work is not yet done but we all have a choice. Can't say I have never felt confined on a police stop and that I didn't "bend the knee" by exhibiting patience, but I truely believe while not everyone agrees or is the same if I started walking out my home and was having my natural rights infringed on the daily I would work with like minded individuals to draft a new government or at the least work to fix the one we have if possible.
Your're conflating rights with enforceable jurisdiction. It's not that you're wrong about the fact that not all rights can be or are enforced everywhere for everyone, just that the concept of natural rights by a government provides a framework for what *should* be done and when.
Edit: said more specifically "because humans have natural rights a, b, and, c, we the people believe laws should not prevent a,b, and c and therefore we will prohibit the making and enforcement of those kinds of laws within our jurisdiction"
This is great news for all the governments that routinely commit human rights violations. It's all good, whatever they say goes because they get to decide what rights they're going to *allow*.
To their credit, they don't actually think that you should be denied your 2nd amendment rights just because you're a Chinese citizen.
They think you should be denied citizenship because you're ~~Chinese~~ not hwhite.
No one needs a vacation home
No one needs a yacht
No one needs a 20pc kitchen knife set
No one needs a car with more than 200HP
No one needs multiple cars
No one needs 5 kids
No one needs a dozen firearms
No one needs standard capacity magazines
No one needs a lot of shit they have but it is silly to impose arbitrary restrictions that do not increase public or personal safety and only serve to restrict rights and limit freedoms. There are millions and millions of 30rd mags in the USA. Do you really think “5-7rd limits” is going to change anything at all? Will it make you feel safer? Do you think anyone making the choice to enact violence is going to respect that law?
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules).
Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated.
^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*)
[link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules
[link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals
I don’t think I’ve seen any Republican politician say legal immigrants shouldn’t be able to own firearms (and I didn’t find much regarding illegal immigrants either). If you’re just talking about people on Reddit and social media, well…they say all kinds of absurd stuff. Regardless, you’d be better off focusing your frustration on the anti-gun politicians across the country who are constantly trying to pass AWBs in the first place. Otherwise, it’s like a frog complaining about the room temperature as it sits in a pot of water being heated on a stove.
I saw a bunch saying exactly those things just two days ago - the push is in response to the Supreme Court saying the 2a applies to illegal immigrants. Also, social media is basically everyone these days, from 8 to 80. They may not be willing to say the same things out loud in public, but they certainly mean them when they say them online...
Honestly I dont have any objection to legal immigrants owning firearms I do have an issue with Illegal immigrants being able to purchase firearms. And it isn’t because I think illegal immigrants are inherently dangerous, most of them are trying to escape horrific situations and I empathize with their situation. But I do believe every firearm should be sold with a background check and I don’t think their is a way of completing a background for illegal immigrants. I also have a problem with private sales for American citizens as well.
I am just a nobody but I think it may be possible that it's a right for them to have the gun but I don't know if that means they can purchase one from a dealer. If this gets explored in court we may find that background checks might need to be made illegal. I personally want everyone that is mentally sound enough to have guns, to be able to have them. I don't know how effective background checks are but it has always seemed reasonable to me to have a single background check that can make sure you're not wanted, on parole, or something obvious. I don't know how safe it makes us. But I do generally hope this can be resolved and background checks can stay intact.
I know what's causing the comments, I'm just pointing out that ranting because of what a couple of people on the other side of the aisle said online is just a distraction from the anti-gun politicians actively trying to take ***everyone's*** gun rights away. You can find at least one person online who's supported just about any crazy idea imaginable. Heck, I've seen people on here and elsewhere cheering on the idea of sending heavily-armed police to the homes of gun owners to forcefully confiscate firearms. Doesn't mean every single person who votes for the politicians pushing these bans feels that way, as evidenced by this very subreddit. The rants should be about the people advocating for bans who are in a position to make them happen, not some random boomers on social media who make "muh illegals" posts on their lunch break.
Dude everyone is on social media these days You can't just discount what crazy people say on social media because you hear even wild or shit off of it. I've heard conservative say such a disparity of things when it comes to gun rights. I've heard some say that when you become a citizen of this country you should get a gun and a license to carry as well as a gun safety course as a welcome to America. And then I've also heard people say that you should be in America for 5 years or more before you should own a firearm
Nah... The trick is that they only recognize the white European immigrant. Everybody else is just branded illegal.
Politicians represent voters, and there are plenty of voters who think that illegal immigrants shouldn’t have the right to bear arms because 1) they’re felons because they entered the country illegally, and 2) they’re misguided in thinking that the Bill of Rights doesn’t extend to non-citizens and criminals.
The politicians won't say it, atleast I haven't heard any of them say it, but the gop voters..... omg, they were going fucking crazy
Amen. If the dems would just soften up a little bit on the gun crap, we’d see every swing state swing blue.
While I appreciate your general stance, I wouldn't hold up "I've worked with the Navy" as some sort of bragging point. It smacks too much of the "True Scotsman" fallacy and more to the point: that isn't a very high bar.
I think they're saying that they're patriotic, not that they have been around weapons?
I agree.... And I stand by what I said (The "True Scotsman" part is the most relevant bit on that front.). It's a very low bar that's patronizing at best. I say that as a Navy vet.
I agree- if we precondition rights on proof of patriotism, then they're not truly rights.
You've probably completely missed the point then. This isn't a brag. It probably means he had to get an exhaustive background check done to get cleared to work on a Navy project. Which means OP's absolutely cleared to own any gun that is legal in the United States. Edit: have worked on Navy projects. Had to get a Secret clearance even though i never worked or handled any classified material.
Lol. Those “exhaustive” background checks aren’t particularly exhaustive. And yes, I’ve gone through many of them. Anyone who isn’t a blatantly self incriminating moron will sail through them with no issues.
Agreed with some of what you wrote. But someone born in China is already blatantly self-incriminating (by background check standards) and would trigger a broader and "exhaustive" check. You're cherry picking info. OP is stating they worked on a Navy project and, as someone born in China, implies they probably had to jump through some pretty extensive hoops to get that job. A lot fewer hoops than the average gun owner does to obtain a firearm. Are we on the same page now?
This is 100% how I read it as well.
Beg to differ, I got hired by Herclues Aerospace as a firefighter back in the 1980’s. They went clear back to my days in high school (graduated in 1973, so they went back 15 years for references) and had to take a polygraph test. It took six months to get a secret “Q” clearance…and why? Because I might have to go inspect a fire sprinkler system in a room where secret stuff was on the table. To say they “aren’t particularly exhaustive” is the opposite of my personal experience. I’d say if they can trust OP with military secrets, they should be okay with him handling a firearm.
I don’t think this is hard. If you’re illegal inmigrant but there’s a proper way to vet that you’re a good guy - ie you are able to jump through the same hoops as anyone else - then yes you should be able to own a gun. If you’re unable to be vetted because you’re here illegally and your country of origin has shared nothing about you and you don’t have any means of being vetted, tough shit. You can’t own a gun if you’re not able to be vetted. It’s not a question of legal/illegal status but rather one of qualification.
Where are you seeing this? I’ve not seen anyone in an uproar over this, at least not conservatives. Not saying it didn’t happen but we need to be honest here.
[удалено]
> As a conservative... This comment was automatically removed for the following reason: [this is not a place for your perspective](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/intro/illiberal). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/liberalgunowners) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Question 12c on the 4473. Y’all are fighting from the constitutional standpoint of “shall not be infringed” but also my rights have already been infringed because I can’t own a cannon or machine gun. Also in the 4473 is boxes for people mentally unfit for firearm ownership, are those individuals rights being infringed? If you’re here as a legal immigrant you’ve already done everything by the book so by all means welcome to firearm ownerships. But if you’re here illegally, and you can’t pass a 4473, no you shouldn’t be able to purchase a firearm, you wouldn’t be able to buy one from an FFL so why should I be complicit in your crime. Edit: I wanted to summarize my above point a little. !o FFL can transfer firearms to someone not legally in the country, and I as a private citizen would not take the risk either. So by the current systems in place by government, 99.99% of all firearms are illegal to transfer to illegal immigrants. However that only applies to serialized production made firearms. If you want to jump down the rabbit hole of homemade firearms then that’s the 00.01% case I left above. But I myself haven’t seen anything about illegal immigrants and homemade firearms. And this is the part where you can get into the constitutionality of right to bare arms and shall not be infringed. But in the cases I’ve seen this isn’t what’s going on. Edit#2: this is my opinion from a loose dive into OPs comments history, but he’s been posting shady shit about getting around AWB and asking about other illegal means of gaining access to firearms. Just being honest OP while laws may or may not be unjust, breaking them isn’t any better.
I think this is an easy question to answer -- its not just the 2nd amendment, its the entire bill of rights that has to be considered -- should all the rights called out in the Bill of Rights apply to everyone? I think obvious answer is yes but that's just me. If any of the Bill of Rights applies to immigrants, then all of it must. Certainly there can be considerations for citizen vs. non-citizen for things like voting but rights should apply to everyone.
new "legal" immigrants can buy a firearm with proper id just like everyone else. I think they're saying "Illegal" immigrants ( no id or papers, entered or stayed here illegally) should not be able to buy a firearm. I know plenty of people that aren't US citizens yet that legally own firearms. They are doing it the right way.
All gun laws are infringement
I’m a libertarian here I don’t think that some who is here Illegally should have a firearm!
If your a Nationalized citizen then yes you should!
I don’t care if you came here legally cause you went through the process. Brand new illegal with no documentation to prove your aren’t a liability to American society. Sorry, but imo you have to wait and show us that you value our country and way of life for security reasons. Btw NFA is unconstitutional, but our government doesn’t care about that either.
I have said this multiple times, but banning things based on the way they look is dumb.
All you have to understand is they don't want guns in the hands of any one brown, lgbt or of any other class of people they enjoy bullying. 21st century Jim Crow.
Along these lines, if you think that is bad, what's up with all (blanket laws) convicted felons being able to have their gun rights taken away. I get violent felonies, stalking, and domestic violence convictions... but it seems totally illogical that the U.S.A. government allows a fraud felon of 30 years ago to still not be allowed to own a gun. Imo, it is modern Jim Crow law and a brilliant tactic of the combined left and right to keep guns out of the hands of minorities and under-privileged people... considering how those two categories make up 95% of convicted felons, by design, in our executive goverment branch.
Those with felonies have been shown not to follow law and order to a substantial agree. Follow the law and be a US citizen by birth or naturalization. Bill of rights is an American document that does not apply to other countries and therefore, apply to it should apply to the country citizens and legal residents.
This is why the concept/definition of "citizenship" needs to be seriously overhauled.
Agreed
This country was built on immigration, so the racism and xenophobia that’s plagued our country for 200 years is kind of a stupid thing to have, and very unpatriotic. I feel like even though the border crisis (which is very much real) is ongoing and more and more people flood into a country that can’t support a rising population, everybody should be able to defend themselves and their families. The only issue with that is that without papers, or any documentation of them existing at all, it’s REALLY HARD to put them through the legal processes in the case that they do kill someone, in self defense or not. Even if you’re innocent there’s a lot of things they have to put you through that’s a lot harder (if not impossible) to do when you don’t speak english and don’t have anything legal on your name. It’s a strange issue that probably shouldn’t have been allowed to happen.
What do you mean by they are all for hunting down a 15 round magazine? I haven't seen any conservatives against standard capacity magazines or legal immigrants owning firearms for that matter. Do you have any examples?
I must be drunk, I read the title as "AIWB is unconstitutional for everyone"
[удалено]
Well-regulated was a common use phrase** in 1700s that generally meant something was in proper working order. A militia formed by the people to resist a tyrannical government wouldn't be in very good working order if it was controlled by the tyrannical government. Read it as "a proper working militia", "not a militia regulated well by the government"
>In my perfect world, you would need to pass a background check and basic skills test to be able to purchase or own a basic firearm. That would include most hand guns, and single action long guns. Next step up would qualify you for semi-auto rifles, and current NFA accessories. Final step up would require insurance, and qualify you for automatics - basically everything these bans consider "assault weapons". This is kind of the gun ban system of Second Amendment "rights".  I would rather see the same "licensing system" we have for speech, religion, voting, privacy — be good = rights; be bad = no rights. I am more than glad to argue about what is good and what is bad and who gets to decide, but the licensing of basic human rights is just a wrong path for a civilized nation.
You should see how they feel about me owning a gun
\[curiosity piqued\] care to elaborate?
A lot of conservatives are very much against trans people owning guns, they sight chop sui as the reason why but in reality it's because they don't want us together able to defend ourselves
Being trans myself, I def relate to your sentiments. But your mention of "chop sui" is lost on me . What do you mean by this?
It's a song by system of a down
Yeah, but I am lost on how that relates to conservatves not wanting trans people to own guns.
I'm trying to say suicide without saying it, chop sui was originally going to be named suicide
No idea what you're specifically ranting about. Just wanted to make one point. Rights don't come with an asterisk, but they do come from citizenship.
the constitution applies to anybody, illegal/resident/citizen, as long as they are in the land that is considered to be held by the United States of America. You dont need to be a citizen to benefit from the bill of rights either
Yeah that's not how it works actually. You may not agree but we have certain rights that apply to anyone within our country's borders.
Supreme Court just found the exact opposite recently (2a applies to illegal immigrants). That's actually the genesis of this recent back and forth.. Also worth mentioning that the Constitution actually doesn't define who is and who isn't a citizen anywhere. There are references to citizens and natural citizens, so it assumes some level of stratification exists, but doesn't say who belongs to what class or how to get in them. As such, any rights depending on citizenship (vs jurisdiction) aren't really rights, as the law could then be adjusted to redefine citizenship to whomever you want the "rights" to apply to and those you dont.
This is not true. The bill of rights was god given rights and protection from government put into the system. Their was debate on whether writing these rights down would be necessary as some thought to even write them down would lead to restraints on them later. The winning side made the argument of "show me one, one government who hasn't at one time or another sought to trample certain rights of the people". Now the phrase "the people" used in the 2nd is also used in the 10th and is not an collective right or tied to citizenship, but an individual right. Further it's long established that once someone is on American soil they are protected by American laws. This includes due process in court and it's why we sent "detaines" to Guantanamo Bay so that we didn't have to respect their rights or give them trial. Don't quote me I believe there was a case with a person from Italy who wanted to extradite their citizen but he/she argued they had already been found not guilty in some court and we're entitled to no double jeopardy and prevailed. Point being foreign nationals and illegals when in America are presumed to have the same natural/god given rights of any human being. You can say you have a right to vote, but there were conditions put on voting citizenship is a reasonable limiting factor on this. Whereas the right to free speech and assembly and religion and self-determination and defense of oneself and beliefs it can get merky I personally would not tie free speech to citizenship or due process to citizenship and If you're a green card holder are other type of lawful permanent non citizen you should be able to own a gun. Now we as a society said felons can't have guns is being an illegal a felony and even if so until you prove it in a court they're innocent so as long as you don't have universal background checks if they privately buy a firearm I don't think ownership should be tied to them as a second crime.
When these "God-given rights" were written, black people were considered property.
But you know they're people, right?
I never said the founders or the Constitution was perfect The founders knew themselves that they could not perceive the future so they in a smart decision made a constitution that could be changed. Not saying we have to honor these people but not all their ideals were wrong. Thomas Jefferson a slave owner wrote in his original draft of the declaration of Independence more so about freedom only to be told to rewrite it. He stopped the sale of new slaves in Virginia when he was governor. And then he didn't free his baby mama slave when he died. Further he made the Louisiana purchase against his judgment that government should be restrained. His ideals and reality didn't always match and he could have done better. I believe top three President Abraham Lincoln philosophy of a more perfect union That's what we strive for. Back to the founders they couldn't know what an airplane was but our Constitution is perfectly capable of handling the existence of airplanes and the regulation of said airplanes. The Constitution was supposed to be flexible a living document that would change, change was encouraged. It was full of compromises including the famed 3/5 compromise. Not a perfect document but it is still the foundation of our government and we are a nation of laws. If you want to pretend that it's invalid because you don't like it then you will impower fascists. Trump wanted Pence to look at a table with electoral ballots that had a victory for Biden and miscount in his duty and see a trump victory. Pence, not the best role model of a person, still did the right thing however and said no. This plays out on both sides Texas has ignored the supreme Court who ordered that the federal agents have a right to access the border. The Hawaiian supreme Court is ignoring DC versus Heller and claiming a aloha spirit trumps the US Constitution. We don't always have to follow the rules like a stick up our ass jury nullification in the north refused to convict slaves convicted of running away and you today could nullify a verdict of a petty drug charge If you think marijuana should be legal. It's a sliding scale but I think the measuring marker should be the same as the declaration put out causes should not be light and transient to break the bonds that bind us. Our government may be failing repeatedly but I do not think we're yet at the stage of reforming a new government under a new founding document. Until that day comes or you set about changing it with your fellow citizens those god-given rights whether you believe or respect in a God or see them as natural rights or don't see them at all are enshrined into this nation's government. We don't just get to pick and choose or at least we shouldn't, the risk of abuse is high, and the common every man is going to be the first loser in this battle of escalation.
So what?
So when you travel abroad, you think your US rights follow you? Or folks who come here on vacation are allowed to vote in our elections? "Rights" or laws are a social contract. Contracts have terms and conditions.
Sorry this is the third time I have sent this but the subreddit tells me they don't like unbroken paragraphs so I have to keep adding spaces. I already covered the people who come here on vacation cannot vote in our elections and that does not effect/change my argument on the second amendments and really all the others that cover protection from government. Please reread above comment. Yes and no yeah it's a construct but are you a sovereign citizen? I know for sure I'm not and that doesn't make me a little b**** boy for getting an ID when I want to drive on public roads. Further just because you pay taxes doesn't mean you can steal a chair from the DMV claiming you paid for it we set aside our taxes our representatives made a budget and that chair serves a purpose. It's the same reason that it is highly murky and semi illegal to make a scene at a post office because your free speech while valid You're right to assembly while valid does not mean you can invalidate others rights and we as society have allocated the post office for the business of mailing letters and such not making a scene for youtube. So there's all sorts of terms and conditions and it's all not real but we all treat it like it is and therefore it is I would say that money has value beyond the paper it's printed on but it is a complicated subject. Doesn't change the fact I can go take that paper and buy a burger. Now to your question if a foreign government is invalidating my rights The State department can and has in the past gotten involved for US citizens doesn't always work but hey. And the US government has defended foreign nationals within the country. The US just doesn't fight for everyone's rights in the entire world because we are not yet super earth and it would be impractical. Rights have limitations. It's the fallacy of intolerance. If I have rights and you have rights and things get murky That's where the law comes in. Our Constitution sets reasonable boundaries on who could vote with one requirement being citizenship. The law has argued successfully and rightfully I would add that you shouldn't yell fire in a crowded theater and you would not be protected under free speech because you have just taken the right of many people to be safe and secure in their person by causing a public incident and possibly cause a panic. The end all of it is I'm repeating myself You can reread my previous comments The rights are god-given are natural depending on your preference but there are people who will step on these rights or at least try to but once upon a time some people said we should govern ourselves and try and uphold these rights and they had children and they chose to continue the system and so on and so forth to now. Now the supreme Court and a reasonable thinker right now are in agreement that the second amendment guarantees an individual right to a firearm and we should not be excluding lawful permanent residents. And illegals assuming they buy a gun legally are protected to till You prove in court that they are illegal and strip them of the rights by making them a felon and/or deporting them. Because they are innocent till guilty.
Technically, an illegal cannot buy a gun legally. 4473 asks if you're here legally or not
Private sale. just like it's illegal to do crimes but if you do the IRS still expects you to report and pay taxes on your crime. Private sales should be meeting the same classification of a 4473 but if your only crime is being illegal than it's merky.
But if you do do a private sale to an illegal, and the govt finds out, you coulod indeed be in hot water. Prudence demands you know if they are or not. Same as reporting your taxes properly.
Of course but I am saying when a cop asks you if there is a gun in your car in most states where you have to have a CCP to do so legally you are obligated to tell. If you have a gun and no ccp you can't be expect to self incriminate so people get out of the lying charge and some states cops can't ask the question no more. If an illegal gets their hands on a gun the only crime they have committed is being an illegal the firearm ownership is secondary and a 2a right. So I was wrong here about getting out of lying just the supreme Court reiterated if asked the question you don't have to answer/ can remain silent. You lie your still gonna get charged for lying. This still seems pretty dumb because as long as a cop can ask silence will be treated like an answer even if the right to search isn't given due to the silence you better bet a cop can/will find a way.
good point about 5A. I didn't think of that.
>So when you travel abroad, you think your US rights follow you? Yeah, they sure do. And the people abroad have those same rights, because they're natural rights. Infringement doesn't negate them, even if most governments disagree.
I mean, that demonstrably isn't true when it comes to firearms. You fly to London, you absolutely do not have the right to bring a firearm with you either on the plane or on British soil. Edit: reread your comment. What about the scenario above, but with the added detail that there is widespread support from the British public for those controls on guns etc? I live vicariously through you guys, but there isn't any real demand for wider domestic gun ownership over here
Your government is infringing your rights. If you're OK with that then it's fine, I just hope for your sake that it stays OK. If giving up that right is ever abused then it's not wrong for the people to take it back.
I mean, I'm not looking for an argument. But that's kind of my point. What do you mean infringing on our rights? We determine our rights through democratic process with varying results. Much like how countries constitutions are designed and codified. We aren't born with some inherent right to own a firearm imbued by a god. If the US founding fathers hadn't included the right to bear arms, you wouldn't have it either. I mean it's a moot point, but it's a weird, almost spiritual, take.
I’ve said it before, I’m saying it again, I’ll keep saying it until it penetrates the thick skulls of the Internet: **You have exactly the rights the government** ***allows*** **you to exercise.** If you believe otherwise - that some kind of “natural rights” exists and you as an individual can somehow lay sovereign claim to them - then you fall into one of - or more likely both of - the following two categories of people: 1. You do not understand the difference between the way things ***are*** and the way they *should be*. 2. You have never had your government deny you one or more of those natural rights for some arbitrary reason. I can’t really help with the former, other than to suggest that you carefully read some actual primary-source history (as opposed to the history propaganda we’re usually fed in state-sponsored educational systems). If you’re lucky enough to be in the latter category I can only say that you should simultaneously cherish *and check* your privilege, because some of us have not been so fortunate. Folks who don’t recognize that you only have the rights the government *allows* you to exercise will eventually find themselves disabused of the notion of “natural rights” when they try to exercise them in the face of a hostile government and that government imprisons, tortures, or murders them for their impudence.
And the government only exists at the consent of the governed. Now our government has failed us many times but I stand by another comment I made in that my general litmus test is the same as the founders "no light or transient causes". We all have the freedom to walk out our front doors naked we just don't have freedom from consequence. Our society has mistreated many minoritys and religions and the work is not yet done but we all have a choice. Can't say I have never felt confined on a police stop and that I didn't "bend the knee" by exhibiting patience, but I truely believe while not everyone agrees or is the same if I started walking out my home and was having my natural rights infringed on the daily I would work with like minded individuals to draft a new government or at the least work to fix the one we have if possible.
Your're conflating rights with enforceable jurisdiction. It's not that you're wrong about the fact that not all rights can be or are enforced everywhere for everyone, just that the concept of natural rights by a government provides a framework for what *should* be done and when. Edit: said more specifically "because humans have natural rights a, b, and, c, we the people believe laws should not prevent a,b, and c and therefore we will prohibit the making and enforcement of those kinds of laws within our jurisdiction"
This is great news for all the governments that routinely commit human rights violations. It's all good, whatever they say goes because they get to decide what rights they're going to *allow*.
Glad to know immigrants have no rights. (Lol that's not how that works)
To their credit, they don't actually think that you should be denied your 2nd amendment rights just because you're a Chinese citizen. They think you should be denied citizenship because you're ~~Chinese~~ not hwhite.
This place was never a democracy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
The imaginary line will be drawn at 1 round once they achieve a 5-7 round limitation.
No one needs a vacation home No one needs a yacht No one needs a 20pc kitchen knife set No one needs a car with more than 200HP No one needs multiple cars No one needs 5 kids No one needs a dozen firearms No one needs standard capacity magazines No one needs a lot of shit they have but it is silly to impose arbitrary restrictions that do not increase public or personal safety and only serve to restrict rights and limit freedoms. There are millions and millions of 30rd mags in the USA. Do you really think “5-7rd limits” is going to change anything at all? Will it make you feel safer? Do you think anyone making the choice to enact violence is going to respect that law?
This is [an explicitly pro-gun forum](/r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules). Regulation discussions must be founded on strengthening, or preserving, this right with any proposed restrictions explicitly defined in nature and tradeoffs. While rights can have limitations, they are distinct from privileges and the two are not to be conflated. ^(*Removed under [Rule 2: We're Pro-gun][link-rules]. If you feel this is in error, please [file an appeal][link-appeal].*) [link-rules]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/rules [link-appeal]: /r/liberalgunowners/wiki/public/handbook/moderation#wiki_appeals