Posted on 10/05/2007 3:39:13 PM PDT by processing please hold
Most excellent, thank you. Might want to post as a thread to the banglist?
Check the banglist for my threads. Whenever there is a significant update to the case, I post a new thread with assorted links.
But, of course, those of us in Kalifornia face prison for failing to ask the government's permission to transfer a firearm.
Or anybody else the DA doesn't like. The prison sentences are severe and conviction, even without prison, would bar one from firearm's ownership for life.
So why don't you tell me some things that cannot be outlawed because of my right to defend myself?
So we agree, at least, that the right to defend yourself does not include a gun?
I really hate to start another argument without finishing the first one.
Say that again, will you.
In fact, why don't you list the things that you believe are not included in the right to self defense.
The list of prohibited weapons could be unending, starting with sticks and stones. -- Rational people realize this, -- which is why they simply said that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Irrational types cannot dispute this plain truth, -- as we see.
Absolutely not.
Just damn! Pardon my french.
Well, of course. If stones are allowed, the next thing you know, people will be fashioning slings to accelerate them toward the target. We certainly can't have that.
And the really clever among us will be choosing "rocks" made of lead instead of stone for the improved handling and penetrating power. But it's just unthinkable that anybody would have justification to use chemical reactions to accelerate the projectile. If our Creator had wanted us to have guns, he would have given us large brains to work out the details so that we would not be easy prey for wolves, bears, or other humans.
Now, how can you possibly say that the right to defend yourself includes the right to defend yourself with a gun?
Federal Issues:
In general, non-immigrant aliens are forbidden to possess any firearms or ammunition. But there is a big exception for a legal alien who:
...is in possession of a hunting license or permit lawfully issued in the United States
(See Title 18, USC Chapter 44, Section 922, part (y)(2) for details.)
Green-card holders and immigrant aliens who do not yet have their green card are both okay under federal law, although many people (including gun dealers, law enforcement officers, etc.) are not aware of the distinction or the hunting license exception, and erroneously think that either you have a green card, or you can't have guns.
Also, a non-citizen cannot purchase a firearm from a federally licensed firearms dealer unless they have been a resident of their state for 90 days.
So, no, tourists on short visits cannot walk into guns stores to get "protection" during their trip.
Yes. Fully infringed unless you are a head-of-state or other elite. Just as we ought not to allow out of prison anybody who cannot be trusted with a gun, we should not allow into our country anybody who can't be trusted with a gun.
Again, why don't you tell me some things that cannot be outlawed because of my right to defend myself?
What kind of answer is that? Foreign visitors have a right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves, but that right is infringed by our government. Damn them!
Fine. If that's the way you wish to debate.
"Again, why don't you tell me some things that cannot be outlawed because of my right to defend myself?"
Everything can be outlawed except nail clippers and Bic pens, according to the U.S. Constitution. You'll note that the airlines reversed their position on these items, proving that they knew their policy was in direct conflict with the constitution.
I'll try again. According to YOUR interpretation of the meaning and scope of "the right to self defense", what are the legitimate limitations of legislation? Is there anything at all that you believe SHOULD NOT be outlawed that constitutes self-defense?
You give my question serious consideration, I'll do likewise. Otherwise you're wasting my time with your childish antics.
You asked if I agreed that my right to self-defense does not include use of a gun. I answered, "Absolutely, not", that I do not agree. That was not flippant.
You asked if I thought foreigners allowed into our country have a right to keep and bear arms. I answered, yes, though the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right. That was not flippant.
Please be specific regarding how any response of mine was flippant.
Furthermore, please provide clarification regarding the scope of my right to self-defense. Surely since you KNOW that it doesn't not include guns, you must be able to state what it does include.
I can say the first amendment protects my free speech right to slander you ... but the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right. I can say the police have the right to search your house without cause and without a warrant ... but the government refuses to recognize that unalienable right.
What's off limits with that as an argument?
The courts have ruled that the right to life is an inalienable, God-given right that man cannot take away. The right to self defense is part of that inalienable right to life. Everyone has it. A four-year-old has it. A prisoner has it. An illegal alien has it. A foreign visitor has it. An insane person has it.
The inalienable, God-given right to self defense does not include a gun. IF IT DID, then the aforementioned group would have the right to use one. THEY DON'T.
You say they do but the government refuses to recognize that. As I said, and as I demonstrated, that's no argument. Can you find anything anywhere to support your statement other than "the government's wrong"? Which I consider to be a flippant statement.
You make the argument that some people (the insane, minors, etc.) are routinely denied the right to keep and bear arms and argue that this means that their unalienable rights do not include the right to a gun.
But in the quoted sentence above, you state that the right to life has been ruled an "inalienable, God-given right that man cannot take away".
Yet convicted murderers are routinely denied their right to life as a man-made consequence for anti-social behavior.
According to our Founders, unalienable rights are endowed by our Creator, they are not created by man. Whether the government infringes a right is irrelevant to the meaning and scope of the right.
YOU stated that my unalienable right to self-defense does not include a gun. What the courts or the government of the US or any other nation says about my unalienable right to self-defense is irrelevant.
The Constitution of Kalifornia states that they recognize my unalienable right to self-defense. That document does not mention guns. I want to know how YOU determined that my unalienable right to self-defense does not include use of a gun. Further, I have asked you to tell me what that right DOES include.
Yes, but only with individual due process -- a trial. An inalienable, God-given right cannot be taken away globally -- we can't pass a law and lock up, say, all foreign visitors.
"YOU stated that my unalienable right to self-defense does not include a gun."
Well, to be correct, society's protection of your right to self defense doesn't, by definition, extend to a gun. If you live above the tree line, no one cares what you use for self defense. You have the natural right to use whatever you wish.
But if you choose to live in a society, the society decides the weapons with which you may use to defend yourself. It may be a handgun, it may be a long gun, it may be neither, it may be both. Which answers your question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.