143 replies to this topic

[questionmark]

preacherman76, on 29 December 2012 - 09:53 AM, said:

They do on American soil. If someone from another country cant come here as a guest and buy a gun, what makes you think they are protected by the constitution? Hell in many cases Americans are no longer protected by it.

The constitution does not only protect Americans but everybody legally living on American soil.

[preacherman76]

Stellar, on 29 December 2012 - 03:47 AM, said:

I thought those were rights given to you by the creator... Did he only give Americans those rights?

Hey if it was up to me, as much as id like to puke on his shoes, he would have his speech protected while visiting. But just cause I or you or anyone thinks something should be a certain way, doesnt make it so. Lawfully the constitution cant protect someone who isnt a citzan. And in a way, it makes sence. What if, and it seems so, he as a foriegner wanted to use his influance to represent the will of another group or country? Lets say he hated America and was looking to use his influance to say destroy the second amendment, or any amendment. Heck England refuses to even let certain people in thier country cause of conflicting political beliefs.

questionmark, on 29 December 2012 - 10:11 AM, said:

The constitution does not only protect Americans but everybody legally living on American soil.

Then how is it they cant lawfully buy a gun?

[ciriuslea]

Oh please don't  we thought we'd got rid of him.

[questionmark]

preacherman76, on 29 December 2012 - 10:14 AM, said:

Hey if it was up to me, as much as id like to puke on his shoes, he would have his speech protected while visiting. But just cause I or you or anyone thinks something should be a certain way, doesnt make it so. Lawfully the constitution cant protect someone who isnt a citzan. And in a way, it makes sence. What if, and it seems so, he as a foriegner wanted to use his influance to represent the will of another group or country? Lets say he hated America and was looking to use his influance to say destroy the second amendment, or any amendment. Heck England refuses to even let certain people in thier country cause of conflicting political beliefs.



Then how is it they cant lawfully buy a gun?

Any legal immigrant, US citizen or not, can buy a gun, the only limitation is the time to make the background check unless they have been living long enough in the US. As far as guns the only limitations I know of is carry permits and the purchase of a silencer, and that only in a few states, where some prohibit it outright and some limit it to US citizens (which probably would not uphold in court if challenged) . Massachusetts has tried to forbid guns to legal immigrants but that was thrown out in court.

[preacherman76]

Wow, I stand corrected. I know a guy in NY that was refused permition to buy a shot gun cause he wasnt a citizan. He was a good friend of mine, who I wanted to take hunting. I just assumed it was the same every where. Course I should have looked into it further. NY is famous for violating the second amendment all the time. Even to Americans.

[Beckys_Mom]

preacherman76, on 29 December 2012 - 10:33 AM, said:

Wow, I stand corrected. I know a guy in NY that was refused permition to buy a shot gun cause he wasnt a citizan. He was a good friend of mine, who I wanted to take hunting. I just assumed it was the same every where. Course I should have looked into it further. NY is famous for violating the second amendment all the time. Even to Americans.

Some of the terrorists over here were known to purchase some guns from the US.. It was well known..It was easier for them to get them in places like the US, and ship the illegally on a boat elsewhere .I guess it depends on who your connections are? .

Edited by Beckys_Mom, 29 December 2012 - 02:38 PM.

[Ad hoc]

ha ha...
Well, nobody likes to be lectured to. Especially by someone outside of the situation.
Can you please borrow piers for a bit longer though.

If I lived in America, especially outside of a big city, I'd probably have a gun too.

Although, whilst I get the 'I want a gun to protect me from other nutters with guns'. reasoning, some of the other core arguments seem unlikely...

Like, defend yourself from the government- if a civilian group ever got into conflict with the government they'd be crushed, surely? I guess that made sense in times when the hardware was a more level field, but in these days of air support, satellite surveillance, and drones, really can't see a bunch of guys sat behind sandbags with rifles fighting off the US army.

Anyway, someone was saying we never had the situation in the UK but we kinda did... in the 19th century there were a lot of guns, particularly with those that flooded in from after the Napoleonic wars. I think we had a similar 'right to bear arms' statute. That was when legislations started to be changed, but it took about a hundred years for the guns to filter out of society. Because it's not like you can go door to door and collect everyone's guns just because you changed the legislation...

But whatever. Calling for piers's deportation just because he's an idiot seems excessive lol

Edited by ad hoc, 29 December 2012 - 08:23 PM.

[shaddow134]

questionmark, on 29 December 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Any legal immigrant, US citizen or not, can buy a gun, the only limitation is the time to make the background check unless they have been living long enough in the US. As far as guns the only limitations I know of is carry permits and the purchase of a silencer, and that only in a few states, where some prohibit it outright and some limit it to US citizens (which probably would not uphold in court if challenged) . Massachusetts has tried to forbid guns to legal immigrants but that was thrown out in court.

http://www.vrolyk.or...alien-laws.html

Some States may have changed their laws but apparantly under Federal law non American Citizens can own and carry a firearm.

[Kafkaesque]

ad hoc, on 29 December 2012 - 08:22 PM, said:

ha ha...
Well, nobody likes to be lectured to. Especially by someone outside of the situation.
Can you please borrow piers for a bit longer though.

If I lived in America, especially outside of a big city, I'd probably have a gun too.

Although, whilst I get the 'I want a gun to protect me from other nutters with guns'. reasoning, some of the other core arguments seem unlikely...

Like, defend yourself from the government- if a civilian group ever got into conflict with the government they'd be crushed, surely? I guess that made sense in times when the hardware was a more level field, but in these days of air support, satellite surveillance, and drones, really can't see a bunch of guys sat behind sandbags with rifles fighting off the US army.

Anyway, someone was saying we never had the situation in the UK but we kinda did... in the 19th century there were a lot of guns, particularly with those that flooded in from after the Napoleonic wars. I think we had a similar 'right to bear arms' statute. That was when legislations started to be changed, but it took about a hundred years for the guns to filter out of society. Because it's not like you can go door to door and collect everyone's guns just because you changed the legislation...

But whatever. Calling for piers's deportation just because he's an idiot seems excessive lol

Tell that to the insurrectionists in Afghanistan. Tell them they can't effectively resist foreign entities emerging onto their lands that have the most advanced technology in the world. Tell them to flee because a couple of AK-47s won't match against a fighter jet or a tank. Go ahead and tell that to them, but then go ahead and ask the Soviet Union and the United States if it was a good idea to wage war against them?

Guns in the hand of determined people - who are fighting for their freedom, can beat the most powerful armies in the world. The US militias showed this when they defeated Britain, the military giant and empire of the world at the time. Afghanistan showed this with Russia, and the US for the past ten years.

Saying AK-47s can't beat a jet or tank is a gross understatement.

Edited by Eonwe, 30 December 2012 - 01:44 AM.

[Ad hoc]

Eonwe, on 30 December 2012 - 01:38 AM, said:

Tell that to the insurrectionists in Afghanistan. Tell them they can't effectively resist foreign entities emerging onto their lands that have the most advanced technology in the world. Tell them to flee because a couple of AK-47s won't match against a fighter jet or a tank. Go ahead and tell that to them, but then go ahead and ask the Soviet Union and the United States if it was a good idea to wage war against them?

Guns in the hand of determined people - who are fighting for their freedom, can beat the most powerful armies in the world. The US militias showed this when they defeated Britain, the military giant and empire of the world at the time. Afghanistan showed this with Russia and the US - for the past ten years. Saying AK-47s can't beat a jet is a gross understatement.

Yep, granted- those examples did occur to me as well. The British one is exactly what I was thinking about when I said 'Makes more sense before the days of modern tech' So I'm not too sure that's a good example now.

As for Afghanistan, I think there is a difference between an invading force like that and a civil uprising in a rich western country. The US government would have the entirety of its infrastructure and information to bear on its citizens, and no option of backing out of the situation ever... which is why for instance Northern Ireland's rebellion failed. It was too much 'home soil' for the UK and there was no option of ever backing out for the government- plus all the infrastructure and info of dealing with part of the UK was power to its elbow.
So in the end, the rebellion just fizzled out... because, short of being systematically displaced and starved, you're not going to do a Palestine.

Then again, you might take the view that that's exactly what your government might do to you. I can't see it myself, but hey. Anything's possible.

Edited by ad hoc, 30 December 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[Kafkaesque]

ad hoc, on 30 December 2012 - 02:24 AM, said:

Yep, granted- those examples did occur to me as well. The British one is exactly what I was thinking about when I said 'Makes more sense before the days of modern tech' So I'm not too sure that's a good example now.

As for Afghanistan, I think there is a difference between an invading force like that and a civil uprising in a rich western country. The US government would have the entirety of its infrastructure and information to bear on its citizens, and no option of backing out of the situation ever... which is why for instance Northern Ireland's rebellion failed. It was too much 'home soil' for the UK and there was no option of ever backing out for the government- plus all the infrastructure and info of dealing with part of the UK was power to its elbow.
So in the end, the rebellion just fizzled out... because, short of being systematically displaced and starved, you're not going to do a Palestine.

Then again, you might take the view that that's exactly what your government might do to you. I can't see it myself, but hey. Anything's possible.

You would be fair to say there is a difference between rich Western countries and countries like Afghanistan.

Let's also include the fact that on top of guns, the Taliban have Soviet surplus stingers and RPGs.

Any insurrection would be taken care of relatively fast - but that is in part because the US is so heavily monitored.

And as you pointed out, one's own infrastructure and land versus foreign landscapes is a different setting entirely.

[The Silver Thong]

And what is this thread about again   getting him fired is one thing deported is another. Guns is yet part of 15 other threads going on right now unless good old Morgan is planning on starting his own none american organized melitia in the state of new york lol.

Edited by The Silver Thong, 30 December 2012 - 02:43 AM.

[Ad hoc]

Eonwe, on 30 December 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

You would be fair to say there is a difference between rich Western countries and countries like Afghanistan.

Let's also include the fact that on top of guns, the Taliban have Soviet surplus stingers and RPGs.

Any insurrection would be taken care of relatively fast - but that is in part because the US is so heavily monitored.

And as you pointed out, one's own infrastructure and land versus foreign landscapes is a different setting entirely.

In any case, guess the possibilities aren't totally clear-cut.

[Kafkaesque]

Back on topic..

https://www.youtube....h?v=RC4JJWUtzkc

This man doesn't know when to shut up and listen.

It's called a discussion. Someone says one thing, the other one listens. Vice versa.

By this man I mean Piers.

Edited by Eonwe, 30 December 2012 - 03:18 AM.

[The Silver Thong]

Piers is a douch bag..... How ever how many stories can we find that states gun owners stop mass killings due to the 2 nd amendment.