Posted on 01/31/2018 8:03:48 AM PST by MNDude
Virginia Tech student accused of having assault rifle and trying to buy ammo By Nicole Chavez and Keith Allen, CNN
Updated at 7:32 AM ET, Wed January 31, 2018
History of the modern assault-style rifle 01:40 (CNN) — A Virginia Tech student was arrested Monday after police said he had an assault rifle and was trying to buy 5,000 rounds of ammunition. Yunsong Zhao, 19, has been charged with illegal possession of an assault rifle while not being a US citizen, according to an arrest warrant obtained by CNN affiliate WSLS. Police say Zhao had bought a former police vehicle -- which still had police markings -- and installed a special bumper to the car. The freshman student had also researched bulletproof vests, the document states. Virginia Tech Police Chief Kevin Foust said Zhao was arrested without incident following a "lengthy investigation."
(Excerpt) Read more at -m.cnn.com ...
Some pretty big $$ to buy that much.
LOL...
So let’s be clear it had nothing to do with buying the weapon, or the cartridges, or being a student. It was because: ‘not being a US citizen’.
"Illegal possession of a gun". That's a concept we really need to get rid of. Either a right is granted by God, in which case, it is inherent in the fact that you are a human being or they are all just privileges graciously extended by the state, to be revoked at will or whim.
I'm quite sure supporters of the almighty police state will feel more comfortable with the latter proposition.
If you are a college student and can’t figure out how to buy ammunition you don’t belong in college.
But, to be fair, I wouldn’t think it was a lot if it was .22 LR. 10 bricks... BFD.
I had no issues until I read about the surplus police vehicle with markings, which makes me suspect he has a few screws loose.
I assume this means you would allow a person to travel here from a foreign country on a non-immigrant visa and purchase as many guns and as much ammo as he wants, no questions asked.
I disagree. While our rights are endowed by our creator, our Constitution is designed to first and foremost protect the rights of U.S. citizens from encroachment by our government. It is not intended to provide foreigners with the seeds of our destruction.
If a visitor here wants to exercise the same right to keep and bear arms guaranteed “the People” he should immigrate here and become a citizen (or at the very least become a permanent resident).
“I think it’s a lot.”
Maybe he’s just a FReeper.
I'm not sure you're correct on this one.... Even rights that are endowed upon us by The Creator are revocable by the state.. Take liberty for example; there are some who's right to liberty has been revoked by the State. They therefore reside in prison. I'm cool with that.
The problem with the article is is doesn't shed any light on why he was not eligible to own this firearm or ammunition. It's a key detail that seems to be obscured.
All human beings, in fact, all of God's creatures have the innate right to self-defense. It is a natural right that exists independent of the law or the whims of other men. If the government weren't so concerned about restricting my rights as they relate to the second amendment, it would be a non-issue. In 1960, any foreigner could walk into an store that sold firearms and buy a rifle, shotgun, or pistol and ammunition for same without any questions being asked. You see, that's what actual freedom looks like, not the 'freedom' to do only what the government allows within specified limits.
So then, just to understand where you're coming from here, you'd disagree with prior supreme court rulings that just because someone is a foreigner that they have the right to speak? Or the right to be secure in their persons/effects? Just wondering how far you'd be willing to go for this illusion of safety the police state will provide.
In Chicago’s inner city I knew a lot of immigrants, legal and illegal, who practiced conceal carry, which is a right they possess because it comes from God/natural law and not from gummint.
They are the best proof possible of John Lott’s theory.
Of course, if you are under control of the state in a prison, you're going to have most, if not all of your rights rather severely restricted. If you're just a free citizen, or even legal foreigner that's not the case, and the courts in our nation have recognized that fact many times.
All of the amendments which make up our Bill of Rights are not worded exactly the same as far as who is being restricted and who is being protected. Our founders were very intelligent and very careful men, and so I do not believe this occurred by accident.
Oxymoron. Court decisions are called opinions for a reason.
Please tell me which of the restrictions on the government, popularly known as the Bill of Rights has wording indicating differences between how they would be applied to legal foreigners and citizens?
Interesting. Most strong supporters of the police state tend to be strong supporters of the legal system as well, since these "opinions" are what are used to enforce the dictates of the state. Do you think that these 'opinions' of the courts should be just disregarded, in general, or only when it contradicts upon the desire of the state to execute control over people?
"person" means any individual person - non-citizens included
When no specific [grammatical] subject is provided, as in the 8th, it means any/all individual persons - non-citizens included. PS - On a side note, "Congress shall make no law" means CONGRESS shall make no law, thereby freeing up the states to make their own laws.
Another racist college.
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.