However, do our rights apply to non-citizens? If not then banningsales to terrorists is a good thing, is it not?
If “terrorists” consists solely of “non-citizens,” then yes. In fact, I would go so far as to say that NO non-citizen should be allowed to buy — or even possess — a firearm. Nor should they be accorded any of the same rights as citizens under the Constitution: no right to free speech, no freedom to practice a religion, no right to jury trial or habeus corpus ... in short, no equal protection under the law.
There are two distinct legal entities here: citizens and non-citizens. If the latter receive all the same rights and distinctions of the former, what is the incentive to become a citizen? How do we exclude from those rights anyone on earth? Our borders become meaningless and our sovereignty ceases.
And while that may be what the marxists among us want, I’d prefer not to have some illiterate Zulu voting in my local school board election or a widow in Turkmenistan drawing Social Security benefits.
Citizens and non-citizens must have different rights if the distinction is to have any meaning at all.