While cruising comments in other places, someone asked “How were they able to own guns???”
My follow up was partly a red herring, unfortunately I had a fact wrong, but the point is just as valid
The older brother was over 21, a US citizen [that’s the mistake – it is the younger brother who was made a citizen last year], had no criminal convictions and no documented mental illness. On what basis should Massachusetts have denied him his right to own a gun?
I knew at the time I wrote the above that Green Card holders (permanent resident aliens) have the same second amendment rights as US citizens. I wasn’t aware that Cambridge Mass had a case on this exact point after the Heller decision
http://ma.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20120330_0000316.DMA.htm/qx
“I conclude the Massachusetts firearms regulatory regime as applied to the individual plaintiffs, contravenes the Second Amendment. Accordingly I GRANT Fletcher and Pryal’s motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 23) and direct that judgment enter enjoining denial of firearm licenses and permits to them solely on the basis of their permanent resident alien status.”
Slippery Slope ahead………..
All sorts of things can go wrong with the right to free speech, the right to bear arms, and perhaps other constitutional rights that would apply. I come down on the side that says, YES to the right to bear/own firearms. It is interesting to know that we do have the constitutional right to vote for the POTUS, as Neil Bortz loved to point out to everyone. So, as other wise people have said, if your want to become a citizen then do it by the rules. If the guy was a citizen and 18+ years old then he had the right to own a firearm. I don’t think the constitution says we have the right to own a bomb. And, of course no one has the constitutional right to harm others.
Let me lather up your slippery slope…
Do rights come from God or do they come from government? Is the right to own a gun an inalienable right? If so, all humans have the right merely because they are alive. We have a right to liberty – unless you are convicted of a crime or your country conscripts you into military service.
The decision up above is not new – it was a summary judgement meaning it is do obvious there is no need for trial. Permanent resident aliens (like the older brother) do have a right to own a gun to the same extent as any other person. The 2nd amendment says “the right of the people”, not “the right of citizens”. Keep in mind that until the Constitution was ratified, the United States had no citizens.
One of my old poll questions asks “do illegal aliens have inalienable rights?”. If you believe rights are created by God, then the only consistent answer is “yes”
The hole here is “inalienable rights” is a concept that Jefferson glibly put into the Declaration of Independence. But the Constitution was written by men with a very different point of view. The proposed Constitution had no reference to inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights were added, but they clearly are not inalienable – if you have an inalienable right given by God, you can’t hold a vote and make the right go away.
How is your footing?
Is the right to own a gun an inalienable right? Or is the right to own God’s own Cannabis sativa an inalienable right?
If the answer to the former is yes, how can government take it away for people that had owned the latter? …likewise for the right to vote.
The Declaration of Independence was a declaration to the Universe that the American people have rights that come from a source higher than any other creature, entity, government, corporation or written documents. So, think of the American people as having unalienable rights as Natural rights whereby none of the above mentioned sources, or forces can undo or nullify those rights.
Since America’s founders declared to the entire Universe that no Force could negate the natural, unalienable rights of the American people they laid a foundation for establishing a government that has limited power that can not limit, infinge or negate the natural, unalienable rights of the American people. Wow!!! Except for a mentally ill POTUS or SCOTUS that is very clear.
So, moving onto the Constitution: the founders already made it clear that it is not the Constitution, a written document, whereby the American people have natural, unalienable rights. Natural, unalienable rights can not be taken away by any other creature, entity, any government, corporation or a written
document.
Any statements about the idea we have ‘Constitutional’ rights is out-the-window. Think of it as a misnomer. The Declaration of Independence was a Universal statement.
Moving forward. Now a government could be formed, and one was formed. The Bill of Rights were an afterthought, a written document, and they do not undo, negate or nullify the unalienable rights. Any other concept is invalid.
The Consitution could be changed, so long as our unalienable rights are not violated, as stated above. The founders were careful not to assert we were created by a god, but choose to say by the creator. That could be a future problem because now any superior creature or entity could come upon the scene and declare, we are your Creators. So, that is probably going to take place sooner than we are prepared to deal with as creatures who may be lacking in defenses capable of protecting ourselves,
such as holding them at bay and forcing them to prove they have any rights over us.
Since I have consumed an adult beverage, or 2, I reserve the right to amend, change, clarify or do whatever I want to my written statements above.
After this morning at work, I may have to take up drinking….. One major quibble
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
It’s not all Americans, it’s all men. [women are property]
The big three are not an exhaustive list. Part of the problem is some of the radio talk people haven’t ever looked up unalienable (bonus points if you can explain inalienable vs unalienable)
The slippery slope continues – how do we know “the right to a good job at a fair wage” is an inalienable right? Where is the list? Who gets to speak with the Creator and get her answer? Is the recognition of rights a creation of the consent of the governed? Can the governed make a right go away by withdrawing consent?
Unalienable rights can not be sold, can not be traded, can not be encumbered even if an individual sought to voluntarily sell, rent, lease, encumber or otherwise transfer their rights. In short, it is impossible to rid oneself of unalienable rights.
Whereas it would be possible for a person to voluntarily waive inalienable rights, or sell, trade or encumber those rights, it would be unlawful to do so. The story of two brothers where the older brother had an inalienable right to his father’s blessing might be a good example. The older brother, for whatever reason decides to sell his birthright to his younger brother for a price, any price point is sufficient for this example. The younger brother decides to ‘buy’ his older brother’s birthright for a price they both agree to. Then the younger brother goes to his father, and by deceit, poses as his older brother. The father being deceived, gives the younger son the blessing that rightfully belongs to his older son, which illustrates an unlawful transfer, since it is a father’s right to give his blessing only to his firstborn offspring.
With regard to the other questions these are quite difficult to answer briefly. So will have to take up the discussion later, duty calls, and it will take a fair amount of time to complete my assignment.
Rights of visitors are an interesting topic. Can foreign police in the US be armed? When I lived along the southern border years ago, I had learned that Mexican police were not allowed to be armed when in the US and vice versa. I don’t know if that is still true. Reciprocity seems to be the rule, in foreign relations.
I believe that when the US President visits foreign countries, the his US based security travels with him and is armed. Likewise, when foreign heads of state visit the US, they have similar armed security.
Living in NJ as a kid, I learned early about another class of rights. The rights of certain people to drive on the NJ Turnpike at 100 mph with no penalties. They are foreigners traveling between Washington DC and NYC between their countries’ US and UN embassies. With diplomatic immunity, all the state police can do is record the incident and then let them go.
DC and NYC have a similar issue with these folks parking illegally and not paying their parking fines. I believe the DC area (DC or Feds?) even issues “Diplomat” license plates to that the local police don’t waste time issuing tickets that will bring in no revenue.
The criteria is whether the person has a substantial presence in the community. If you’re a tourist on a temporary visa or a day shopper coming over the border for the day, there is no right to keep and bear arms.
Another point of distinction is whether a green card holder has to demonstrate that they ever intend to apply for citizenship. The answer is “it doesn’t matter”. Once you get that permanent resident status, you get a whole bunch of rights.
But it is even more than that since 2011, the DoJ ruled that people who enter the country legally and are not required to have a visa to enter – are allowed to own a gun. All that is required is the establish residency in the state. It’s a murky area and should be in the discussion about immigration reform and “path to citizenship”… But most people have the incorrect belief that only US Citizens can own guns
Your comments I believe are accurate for people visiting with regular passports. People visiting with diplomatic passports are a different category.
When Fidel Castro lived in NYC for a few days in 1979, he brought his own chickens with him, and killed them in NYC just before cooking them. Try to do that visiting the USA with a regular passport.
I remember back in 1991 riding a bus out to the West side of town (generally the Asian + Hispanic section) and seeing a storefront saying “LIVE CHICKENS!!!”
At the time, there was a show on the PBS channel called underground Chicago (I think)… They would drop in to really odd places like that
I’m thinking that store sold pet chickens, unless they had pole dancers in the back
This being Chicago, they would be Polish pole dancers. Mull that over
With some experience, those dancers would become polished.
BTW- for the youngsters here, Castro didn’t think it wise to eat food that was prepared by Americans while he was in NYC. It wasn’t a matter of taste or diet, but concern for his personal safety.
Well ol Bob Scheiffer on ‘Disgrace the Nation’ is still carrying the OBO gun control crusade today. He is having the Connecticut props on, the second half hour cause them two boys in Boston has pistols. Bob says we still need to ban them guns. He’ll be pitching them softballs to the Connecticut props. Scheiffer is still upset at the senate. Gag.
Chris Wallace did ask Senator from Kalifornia , Diane FienSwine: ” Don’t you think with all the lock downs in the Boston area and house to house searches, for dangerous criminals, that citizens should have the rights to be armed to protect themselves?”
reply: ” yes, they can have a shotgun, that is all they need. No need for them big black assault rifles”
Reply from Chris: “Bitch” ooop sorry. That wasn’t Chris’s reply. That was Parrott’s reply. Wife tells me that Diane and Scheiffer, cannot hear me.
LOL
Is FienSwine married? If so I don’t think her old man is doing that any good. What she needs a good old-fashioned ‘attitude adjustment’. She may not be getting enough fiber in her diet , or something? Then I bet she would be a better person, and drop all this gun control talk, (since she has concealed carry permit). She would probably smile more too.
Yeah I think so, LOL
Parrott
Joe Biden’s new home protection advice: buy a pressure cooker and fill it with lime jello, then throw it at the home invaders
Fill it with a soup spoon – no rapid reloading. 😉
LOL,, you all kill me : )
Enjoying the philosophical thinking the streaming radio guides are offering up..
Hey pops,
This is my favorite thread of the day. Enjoy the philosophical thinking:
http://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/1cvl2t/im_no_bush_fan_just_an_observation_it_seems_obama
Just a follow-up example how inalienable rights can be voluntarily waived, but in an unlawful manner. During the police investigation, and the subsequent hunt to apprehend the Boston Marathon bombing suspects, virtually the entire Boston area populace traded their inalienable rights, guaranteed by the 4th Amendment, in return for security.
The entire Boston area was ordered into a ‘lockdown’. Public transportation was shut down, businesses were forced to close (except for Dunkin Doughnuts), the region became a no-fly zone for civilians, and citizens were told they needed to stay indoors while the extensive search was taking place.Video evidence indicates police were surrounding private homes, guns drawn on homeowners, while the police, national guard, federal agents, and/or SWAT members ordered homeowners to keep their hands above their heads. Warrantless searches and a clear violation of the 4th Amendment. The new Template has revealed itself. It is out into the open now.
They, who are against us, appear to be in a hurry for a reason and seemed genuinely spooked about something. Perhaps they are under some sort of a time constraint, some sort of pressure, they are openly transparent in their utter disregard for the law.
Lawlessness is at hand.
There was a thread on Reason.com about that point – the Mayor’s decision to lock down the entire city with no obvious legal basis cost $100s of millions of dollars to the businesses in Boston. This is right out of the terrorism 101 hand book written by Bill Ayers. For an investment of maybe $100, we totally disrupted the entire country for a week.
But worse than that is this is a positive feedback loop – the shooter in Arizona, the two guys in DC, the shooter in CT – the more attention we pay to them, the more incidents that will happen. Which is exactly what the goal is – to make people so scared they’ll accept a totalitarian police state. The best ally of the authoritarian dictator is the anarchist who stampedes the sheep
Nidster, It was a good thing I swallowed my mouthful of morning coffee and safely put down the cup before I read your comment “except for Dunkin Doughnuts”. lol
Yeah, heard that from either Rush or someone else, can not remember. I don’t have another source for that quip. Maybe somebody could track it down.
The following information is Above Top Secret, For the Eyes of the Elite Only. OK, you have been warned.
The ability to affect the nervous system, aka your subconscious, is possible according to United States Patent # 6,506,148 – January 14, 2003 – titled: “Nervous system
manipulation by electromagnetic fields from monitors.” Inventor, Loos; Hendricus G. (Laguna Beach, CA)
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=
%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=6506148.PN.&OS=PN
%2F6506148&RS=PN%2F6506148
“Many computer monitors and TV tubes, when displaying pulsed images, emit pulsed electromagnetic fields of sufficient amplitudes to cause excitation. It is therefore possible to manipulate the nervous system of a subject by pulsing images displayed on a nearby computer monitor or TV set. For the latter, the image pulsing may be imbedded in the program material, or it may be overlaid by modulating a video stream, either as an RF signal or as a video signal. The image displayed on a computer monitor may be pulsed effectively by a simple computer program. For certain monitors, pulsed electromagnetic fields capable of exciting sensory resonances in nearby subjects may be generated even as the displayed images are pulsed with subliminal intensity. ”
SO WHAT? What harm could this do?
“Certain monitors can emit electromagnetic field pulses that excite a sensory resonance in a nearby subject, through image pulses that are so weak as to be subliminal. This is unfortunate since it opens a way for mischievous application of the invention, whereby people are exposed unknowingly to manipulation of their nervous systems for someone else’s purposes. Such application would be unethical and is of course not advocated. It is mentioned here in order to alert the public to the possibility of covert abuse that may occur while being online, or while watching TV, a video, or a DVD.”
Can I open my eyes now?
I’m pretty sure the 60 hz filcker of incandescent very much resonates with your brain. Whether it is hard wired in the brain or conditioned because we’re used to it, I’m not sure- but I’m pretty sure it’s why people are uncomfortable with CFL lights that don’ t flicker
Either squint a lot or just keep one eye opened at a time while online.
Interesting theory about the incandescent flicker vs. non-flicker of CFL lights. Our brains definitely are tuned into the 7.5 hz resonance of Earth.
Get the right flicker. Coming this fall on the HouseFire channel:
http://www.nonstopgifs.com/animated-gifs/flames/flames-animated-gif-004.gif