Bullets cartridges ammunition ammo
Bigstock

Reader SM writes . . .

I am not a US citizen, but would love to become one some day. I grew up in a place (India) where guns aren’t easily accessible and I did not think about owning them for a long time. I was always told to stay away from trouble and I would be OK.

I grew up thinking that the world is fair and if I don’t harm anyone, I wouldn’t be harmed. That worked out great for a while until the day that it didn’t, and I quickly realized that there are physically bigger people who do not always have the nicest of intentions.

I have been to the range many times, thought about buying a gun, but never went through with it. All of that changed when the Sandy Hook shooting happened. Since then, I bought a Beretta PX4 Storm and follow TTAG religiously. I try to remember the many points that the authors here make in countering the anti-gun people I encounter every now and then.

We all know how important guns are historically in this nation and the rights conferred by the Constitution, but I want to touch on a few points about guns, free speech and social justice in modern society.

I believe the Second Amendment is a hedge on the other amendments including the First, but think the necessity of collecting that bet is slim. Free speech has certain limitations, like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none.

Similarly, you can’t shoot into a crowd of people in a theater either. But, they both can happen. Hence, if one person shoots some people in a theater, the potential solutions run the gamut from complete abolition of civilian firearms to restrictions on types of guns that I can use in my own home.

Extend this logic to the ‘fire in a theater’ scenario. Do we now say that I can’t yell “fire” to alert my family when my own house is on burning? Does that sound absurd? Welcome to the gun club (feel free to talk about it).

Being in southern Louisiana for the last seven years of my life has had its ups and down. Baton Rouge had so much crime that I thought about moving to other states. But I soon realized that safety starts with personal responsibility and I wasn’t doing my part in ensuring that.

So, I tooled up, but it took a long time because I was afraid of my interpretation of federal and state gun laws and the ATF ignoring my requests for information.

While having a gun isn’t a 100% guarantee, it gives a 5’7 160 pound guy a chance against a 230 pound thug. Speaking of chances, I find it contradictory that a lot of anti-gun folks I encountered believe there is gross injustice done to the underrepresented and the so-called helpless.

They strive to achieve their perception of balance through socialist policies, yet fail to see how good guys with guns help out in a situation involving bad guys with guns, especially in a “gun-free” zone where people are always vulnerable.

Guns level the playing field in dealing with unlawful and unwarranted use of force against someone with decisive and lethal force. This could be against an 80-year-old grandpa, a 16-year-old lesbian or a minority in the ‘wrong’ neighborhood. In short, guns enforce societal equality.

Not being a US citizen and born in India, where there’s practically no private gun ownership, I could add another perspective. None of the people of Indian decent that I know own a gun. Some of them are students, some work on temporary visas and some are US citizens. Most of them are easily intimidated because of their inherent fear of not being able to defend themselves and their families.

The solution is so obvious, yet they can’t bring themselves to own a gun and it’s a shame. They truly believe that the police will arrive in time to rescue them and try to avoid thinking about those situations. As a good friend of mine likes to say, “They all can hope, but, I carry a Colt.”

Another rhetorical point often floated by anti-gunners is that people tend to escalate a situation when they have a gun. They fail to realize, again, that a gun is not the “one ring to rule them all,” something that compels a person to use it. Take away the gun and insert a knife or baseball bat. The individual still has to make the decision to either use force or not.

Guns only make it easier and that’s not a bad thing. Unlike a baseball bat or a knife whose effectiveness primarily depends on the wielder’s ability to swing it or be a CQB specialist, a gun evens a situation in its ability to rapidly deploy and dish out effective lethality.

Unlike the image portrayed by anti-gunners, someone who makes the decision to buy a gun or carry one on their person, isn’t looking for trouble. They are being prepared for it. They’re very happy to be left alone and not be troubled by a mugger and silently hope that the bulge on the side might be a deterrent.

Finally, I don’t support background checks as a matter of principle that if the government or LEOs can’t guarantee my safety – and the courts hold that view – my right to survival should not be infringed by anyone. I also believe that felons who have paid their debt to society should have their gun rights restored.

I understand that there is a minority of people who are closer to savages than people, but if we trust someone enough to release them back into society, they should also have the right to defend themselves. If not, then they should never be out of a prison.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

115 COMMENTS

  1. Non citizens do not enjoy legal RKBA in the US. Author admits to unlawful possession while exhorting RKBA.

    Just another day in Clownworld.

      • Well, thats clear as mud. Whatever bureaucratic loopholes they connive, Democrats want the invading hordes to arm up, as further examples of why the guns gotta go. Open borders serves multiple purposes.

        Also, whats the transgender side of this topic?

        • “Whatever bureaucratic loopholes they connive”

          Is that anything like a “gun show loophole”? Congratulations, you support gun control. Here’s your goat.

        • “US vs. Ali Rehaif”

          The government also says that it is legal to regulate firearms. At one point it said slavery was legal. None of this changes the nature of unalienable individual rights.

          Again, you support gun control. Here is your goat.

        • Actually it’s quite clear, as far as the federal government goes it is OK for a green card holder to own a gun. Beyond that, it is up to the rules of the individual state. So in a Constitutional Carry state like mine, it’s OK, in a state like NJ, hell, citizens have to jump through hoops to own a BB gun.

    • The author states that it took a long time to tool up, plus found that the ATF was unresponsive to his inquiry into laws for ownership. Leads the reader to believe he then followed the legal process for ownership based on wherever the place of residency is.

    • Another know-nothing “legal scholar” on the web. Legal aliens, whether on citizenship path (“green” card) or not (student or work visa), can buy guns from FFLs with a properly filled out 4473.

      • I know a green card holder who did this last month. I laughed when I saw the first post. Of all the things to say that was so wrong.

      • Yes they can purchase firearms but are still subject to the laws of the state they reside/made purchase in. This is not supported by the 2nd amendment though.
        For them it is a privileged not a right and privileges can be revoked.

        • That’s an interesting point. Once an immigrant (legal or illegal) sets foot on American soil, constitutional protections apply. The leftists are very adamant that they receive all sorts of benefits and constitutional protections….. except 2A rights. This is yet another area where the second amendment is treated as a second class right.

    • “Non citizens do not enjoy legal RKBA in the US.”

      Exercise of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms is not tied to a government. It is inalienable to the individual; endowed by their Creator (whatever they may consider that to be). The only clowns here are the ones that think government is a god and can bestow rights upon someone. Government operates solely on privilege granted by the people governed, through action, inaction, or some of both. Government cannot grant what it does not posses; rights.

      Any law that infringes upon the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms in this nation is an invalid law and therefore not “legal”. Shall not be infringed.

      • You are saying the Constitution extends to non residents, illegal aliens.

        You are making the globalist Democrat open borders argument.

        Skimmed this article again, it reads like the instructions to assemble a Made In India computer desk, but his legal status is murky as he dodges his actual immigration status. Non resident aliens are not conferred Constitutional rights.

        • Rubbish — nothing was said about the Constitution at all.

          Rights arise from self-ownership — no Constitution is required, nor any government. Every human being has the same rights; some governments just don’t let their people exercise all their rights.

          Non-resident aliens have all the same rights as anyone else because rights do not depend on geographical location. But the U.S. government denies the exercise of those rights to some people — despite the fact that the Constitution does not grant it the power to do so.

        • “You are saying the Constitution extends to non residents, illegal aliens.”

          I am saying that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Regardless of where on the globe someone is, they still retain their unalienable rights. The only question is how tyrannical the local government is.

        • Also, GlockMeAmadeus, if you are going to consider court rulings on constitutionality, I hope you realize that the Supreme Court created the doctrine of Judicial Review out of thin air during the case of Marbury v. Madison. Judicial Review is not a power explicitly granted the Court by the Constitution. It was the result of very early judicial activism.

    • US citizenship or Permanent residency is not required to purchase in most states including NFA items you can be on a visa as long as you’re legally here and meet minimum requirements from the federal guidelines.

    • What absolute nonsense. The “right” runs to “the People”. SCOTUS has ruled that green card holders fall into that class. The OP is probably a green-card holder.

      In any case, through the exercise of grace, Congress and most states don’t make possession of guns by legal aliens unlawful per se. Foreigners on tourist visas routinely come to the US to hunt or target practice. To buy a gun involves more hoop-jumping-through; but even that is possible in some cases.

      We can debate illegal aliens. Are these individuals members of the class “the People”? Are they all excluded? I anticipate that – one day – this issue will be adjudicated by SCOTUS. I would find it hard for SCOTUS to rule that an illegal alien who came to the US as a young child and lived here for decades could be excluded from the class of the People. I would also find it hard for them to rule that an illegal alien who came as an adult and had lived many decades here could be excluded.

      I don’t see any difficulty excluding immigrants who entered other than through a port of entry or who are claiming asylum.

    • Actually, green card holders and certain visa holders have the right to own firearms. Learn a bit before you espouse your ignorant BS.

      • I owned firearms legally on a J2 visa, before I went to a H1B visa, then green card ( permanent residency) then US citizenship. I was required to hold a valid hunters license & submit 90 days worth of bills in my name in order to get pistol a purchase permit in North Carolina where I reside. I also carried on nonresident concealed handgun permits legally, these permits had reciprocal agreements with NC. Where there is a will there is a way.

    • Most people have mentioned greencard, but hunting license, from any of the 50 states (not just the one of residence) is also an option for non-citizens. It’s the most common method.

    • AFAIK legal residents can keep and bear arms in the USA, just as we extend other rights to them on American soil. Good luck getting the same treatment in Mexico, China, any middle eastern country, or even parts of Europe these days…

    • https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/922

      You should read the entire 18 USC 922 before dispensing any (legal) opinion. Legal permanent residents have the same rights as citizens with regard to firearm possession.
      Please also pay attention to 922(y)(2). Even some non-immigrant can own/possess firearm under certain circumstances.

    • Legal aliens with proper and legal status can own and carry in the US. Know something before you post about your assumptions.

    • I have a problem with non-citizens being able to buy firearms here ! Greatful for all 2A support , but this is an example of our 2 faced , incompetent CORRUPT PUBLIC SERVANTS !
      The story reads like fiction , and it’s obvious !
      And this cat is supportive of 16 yr old homosexuality & convicted felons !
      And he went way into left field with his comment ” or a minority in the wrong neighborhood “”
      Really , who isn’t a minority here ? Heterosexual WHITE MALES ! Thus implying that minorities are in danger in white neighborhoods , when EVERYONE knows who occupies the most racially dangerous neighborhoods !
      Freakin RINO !!!

    • Green card holders and people with working visas can buy guns if they have a hunting license.

    • Green card holders can be lawful gun owners in the US. The writer says that he is not a citizen, he does not say that he is ineligible to own a gun.

    • Do a search for form 4473 PDF. Read questions 12a through 12d. This should clear this up for you.

  2. I have always felt legal immigrants to the US understand and appreciate our constitution more than many native borns.

    • Makes a difference when the civics test impacts your livelihood…….also having a class for civics.

    • Well, you are wrong. All immigration has been bad for the rights of traditional Americans. We should have closed the borders in 1790.
      If you aren’t a natural born citizen, you should not be in the US, PERIOD.

        • If we had closed our borders to all migrants in 1790 we would be up to 20 states by now. Maybe less. We’d have been more inbred than the brits and maybe the folks already here could have successfully pushed back. After all, Fallen Timbers happened in 1794 and cost us a large chunk of our army.

          If chris didn’t exist in all his glorious retardation the left would have to invent him to make us look bad.

        • Captain Flo Groberg was on that list of foreign born Medal of Honor recipients, TNQP just did an interview with him, really good stuff.

      • If we closed the borders in 1790 the US would’ve been conquered by Mexico.

        Immigration isn’t inherently bad. Immigration can be very good. That also doesn’t mean we open our borders and let everyone in. Arguing logical extremes is stupid because logical extremes don’t work in real life.

        • On the contrary, arguing BOTH of the logical extremes of any issue is highly valuable. NOT because the two polar opposites of a thing are ever obtainable or even desirable, but simply to come to understand both sides. Up cannot exist without down, male means nothing without female to contrast it against, in has no meaning without out, etc. One can have no knowledge of one thing, without also some knowledge of its opposite.
          How is one ever to come to know the “sweet spot” in the middle that’s perfect(but only for that ONE! There is no “perfect” for everyone, but there is a perfect compromise for everybody, but each is unique) for that individual, unless that one understand BOTH sides?
          Without the ability to hear fully from BOTH sides, one is left with only one viewpoint to hear, only one perspective to have, and no way to ever know the other side, thus no chance to ever find his balance. This is the route of government propaganda. One perspective only, the Grand Poobah’s. This leads to a very unpleasant and unhappy society that always destroys itself, unless it can come to reject the one sided view that nothing else matters except what some Grand Poobah orders.
          Exactly as the US’ society is doing now. Declining into barbarism, largely because of these exact attitudes. Thanks for the help bailing water INTO our sinking boat.

      • The Indians agree with you.
        The rest of think your full of shit.
        And if your ancestors were on the mayflower they were not welcomed here by the natives regardless of history says.

      • So… just some folks currently living on reservations and Liz Warren, everyone else GTFO?

      • Let’s take it a step further.
        If you’re not a native born american indian, fuck you, get out.
        Ok?

      • More accurately, we should have closed our borders, and allowed an immigration pathway only to European countries, Slavic countries (which includes Canada). The people from Ireland, Poland, Czechoslovakia / Slovakia, Germany, France, Scottland, Brittan, The Nordic Countries, etc, and people from Slovak decent, all made us stronger because they became America. I’m on the fence about Cubans.

        Bringing in the Chinese, Mexicans, Guatemalans, Arabs, Somalis, Africans, Central Americans, anyone from a country run by Islamic ideology, etc, has only destabilized our country with strife and crime. They watered down our gene pool with bad genetics and low IQs, and to this day, demand special treatment, preference, in schools and employment.

        What the hell are we going to do with in excess of 25,000,000 illegal aliens who have no skills and a low aptitude to learn them, when the nation is quickly moving toward automation? We need high-skilled workers to maintain those systems, not toilet scrubbers and waiters. Those are just the illegals and don’t cover the first rounds of amnesty. The united states will not survive a third. I have to agree that yes, immigration has absolutely made us weaker.

    • Yes. Craig Fergeson, the once CBS late night host and comedian, is a perfect example of this. He probably knows more about the U S Constitution and laws governing many aspects of American life, than people who were born in the U S.

      He came to this country, studied for, and received his U S citizenship after the required length of residency. He is a great example of why those coming to the U S, and expecting to become allowed to remain here, should also not be allowed to do so without going thru the same process, in order to be awarded the privilege of remaining here .

  3. There’s now a long line of “leaders” itching to take your right to keep and bear arms. They ignore the 2nd amendment like it’s irrelevant, but they think that abortion is a “right”.

    The latest from our friend Cory Booker: Booker proposed a new White House Office of Reproductive Freedom, whose mission would be “coordinating and affirmatively advancing abortion rights and access to reproductive health care” across all federal agencies.

    Could you imagine how people would lose their mind if Trump proposed a White House Office of Protecting the Second Amendment whose mission would be coordinating and affirmatively advancing Second Amendment rights across all federal agencies? He should do it just for the entertainment value of their heads exploding.

  5. I took one of our Indian project managers to the range. He was in town for a few weeks. I think it made his day. At first it took him a minute of holding it to even fire a shot. At the end you’d have thought he was Scarface or something. A totally cool experience IMO and he was trying to figure out how to bring one back. (Naturally, I discouraged that a bit.)

    The idea it’s okay to shout fire when your house is on fire is a great point and it’s overlooked when someone goes “you can’t yell fire in a theater.”

    • More importantly, while one may not shout fire maliciously in a crowded theater when there is no fire, the consequent prosecution is for yelling fire, while people are not gagged in a theater so that they cannot yell fire, which is what the equivalent would be for free speech if the same kind of rules were applied as those that exist for firearms.

      • “while people are not gagged in a theater so that they cannot yell fire,…”

        An analogy I like is – The usher isn’t duct-taping the mouth shut of the patrons entering the theater.

        The theater trusts the audience not to yell fire, if there isn’t a fire. God forbid the casualties if a fire broke out and the audience was silenced by duct-tape…

    • Incorrect ^^ and in paragraph 5 of the article. Typing on my phone or I would explain, but please research “prior restraint” as it applies to civil rights.

      The more you know (gif of Spongebob waving stars across the screen…).

  6. An excellent piece revealing another viewpoint of our current gun laws. Would that the anti-gunners could look at this with an open mind too!

    • True, hardcore anti-gunners don’t look at anything with an open mind. They merely pretend to. Everything they do and say is agenda driven. This would be no exception.

  7. When the wolf is at your door. And you cannot defend yourself. Who is at fault here? The wolf…..that’s what he does…attacks. Or you the lamb….who relays on the Lone Ranger to save his butt!

    • Or worse, you could get one of those specially trained “Peterson SROs”… I personally would have preferred to know that no one was coming than get my hopes up.

  8. “and the rights conferred by the Constitution”

    The Constitution does not confer rights. It is supposed to offer protection from government infringement. Please get this correct as the way you phrased it is insulting! We are not subjects. We recognize our own UNALIENABLE rights that we were born with. Government has absolutely nothing to do with it.

    “like you cannot yell fire in a crowded theater when there is none.”

    That is incorrect. Please educate yourself on that matter. If you really follow TTAG closely, then you have already been informed about this trope.

    • “I understand that there is a minority of people who are closer to savages than people, but if we trust someone enough to release them back into society, they should also have the right to defend themselves. If not, then they should never be out of a prison.”

      Spot on.

      Please try to understand the nature of unalienable individual rights. That is the very core of being free and I don’t think that you quite get it completely. (Don’t feel bad about that… Many people born and raised here cannot or will not grasp the concept of individual liberty.)

      I’m glad that you are armed and I applaud you for taking responsibility for your own safety. Carry on.

    • I disagree. There are punishments meted out in the US all the time that have zero pertinence to jail time its self. Examples include loss of professional license, fines, civil forfeiture, making people go to support groups, addiction treatment or get counseling and community service.

      If done as a part of a supervised release I am okay with a person’s rights getting put on hold provided it’s done within the ideals of conviction of a jury of their peers. Having someone re-establish trust in their ability to have rights again instead of going “you can get your rights back 2 minutes after stepping out the door of prison” is probably a good thing. Not having a step between freedom and jail is a bad one.

      • They have rights, and cannot lose them, so they can’t “have rights again”.

        This concept needs to be kept clear, since the legal profession works so hard at obfuscating it: rights arise from being sentient and thus owning one’s self. They do not come from government, so they cannot be taken away by government. Government may tyrannically penalize someone for exercising their rights, but they cannot take away rights other than by taking away life.

        Even a convict in prison has the right to keep and bear arms — he is just not permitted to exercise it there.

        • “Even a convict in prison has the right to keep and bear arms — he is just not permitted to exercise it there.”

          By that ‘logic’, the right does not exist if it cannot be exercised (is not ‘permitted’).

          That’s nothing better than “I support the 2A *but*”…

        • Geoff, it may seem a distinction without a difference, but it is not. It is important that we recognize that a right exists no matter what. Government did not give you your rights. You did not get them through social contract. You did not get them by majority consent. By simply existing, you have those rights.

          That said, we have to protect ourselves and deal with threats as a nation and a people. Some of those threats are people with those same, unalienable rights. In order to do that, we can, and should, curtail the exercise of those rights as long as it is through due process, defined by law, and governed by our Constitution.

      • One does not lose one’s rights at any point. They are unalienable to the individual. What happens is that government infringes upon rights and curtails the exercise thereof. Unless someone is in the legitimate custody of another, the exercise of their unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

        You may like some gun control and therefore disagree. I stand for unalienable individual rights.

        A young lady was at a party and met a wealthy elderly gentleman. They spent a few moment together.
        Man: “Will you sleep with me?”
        Woman: “No!”
        Man: “I am wealthy beyond belief and I am very lonely. Will you sleep with me for ten million dollars?”
        The woman thought for a few moments and replied.
        Woman: “Yes, I will sleep with you for ten million dollars.”
        Man: “Will you sleep with me for ten dollars?”
        Woman: ” Certainly not! What do you think I am?”
        Man: ” We’ve already established what you are, madam. Now we are negotiating price!”

        You apparently want gun control. The only negotiation in your mind is how much you want.

      • “Examples include loss of professional license,”

        Licensed activity is exercising a government privilege. That’s one of the reasons so many of us that truly understand unalienable rights abhor licenses; especially firearm licenses.

        If you have a concealed carry license and your state requires one, then you are not exercising your unalienable right to keep and bear arms. You are exercising a government privilege to do so. There is a world of difference.

  9. There are no rights conferred by the Constitution — that’s another lie of more than a few lawyers.

    The truth is that even in India you had the right to keep and bear arms — it’s just that India’s government doesn’t recognize that right, which is pretty amazing since Gandhi stated that the greatest sin of the British Raj was disarming the people.

    • (I accidentally posted this in the wrong place. I meant to post it under my own reply thread.)

      I would like to point out that this is one important way that knowledge of the unalienable individual right to keep and bear arms spreads globally. People visit here; get to understand the right and appreciate it. When they go back home or their relatives visit, they may learn the value of defending unalienable rights. When they returned home, they talk to others and eventually may spark a change in their home country. The right is universal but government and population recognition of it is not. It certainly cannot hurt liberty for people to learn as much about inalienable rights as possible.

  10. Would you give him the same credibility if he was for gun legislation? I Imagine an immigrant talking down firearms would never be given that kind of due respect but this guy is ok because he tows the line.

    • You mean, would I give someone who does not make a credible argument more credibility than someone who does make a credible argument?

      No, no I would not.

      • So you mean speaking against gun control is more credible than speaking for gun control regardless of the background of the individual ? Someone from India who is against gun regulation in the U.S. is more credible than A U.S. citizen’s reasons to support gun control?

        This is the reply that probably echoes the majority sentiment on this:
        [Sam says:
        May 22, 2019 at 18:05

        Author: “I am not a US citizen, but…”

        Then STFU. I don’t care what you have to say. You have NO say here.]

        • When you speak against gun control you are taking a stand in favor of human and civil rights. When you speak in favor of gun control you take a stand in favor of fascism.

          Nationality, race, gender, none of these matter. You either support human and civil rights or you are actively supporting tyranny.

          There is no gray area.

        • “When you speak against gun control you are taking a stand in favor of human and civil rights. When you speak in favor of gun control you take a stand in favor of fascism.

          Nationality, race, gender, none of these matter. You either support human and civil rights or you are actively supporting tyranny.

          There is no gray area.”

          Amen!

        • Another anti-American.

          Where do all these people who don’t believe in rights come from??????

        • “Where do all these people who don’t believe in rights come from??????”

          The stupid will always be with us. I’ve lived long enough to realize that they actually might be the majority. Yikes!

        • To Jon and Roymand, some of the schools up this way (secondary and college) assign internet projects to post various talking points online to sway discussion. Typically around breaks but that can vary. With that said could have just seen a social media post of an immigrant committing wrongspeak and came to correct the cognitive errors.

        • “So you mean speaking against gun control is more credible than speaking for gun control regardless of the background of the individual ?”

          That is EXACTLY what I (and presumably John) are saying. Good ideas are good ideas regardless of if the person saying them are brown or black or grew up in another place. Bad ideas are bad ideas regardless of if the person saying them is white and had ancestors on the Mayflower. Liberty can be espoused by brown people. White people can be tyrannical.

          It’s the content of the ideas that matter. Not the color of the national heritage of the person holding them. Pains me that I need to spell this out, figured it was just a given.

    • That’s “toes the line”, as in lines up with toes on a line.

      “Tows the line” means to drag a rope behind you from a boat.

      • I can still hear my Drill Sergeant yell “Toe the Line”. Still, 18 years later, it fills me with dread, and now I’m going to go take some Ibuprophen just from thinking about it.

  11. Thank you for this article. I have started taking my team to the range as a thank you for a job well done. Many of them are from India and, like you, have limited experience with firearms. We have a great time and I look forward to each outing. I hope some of them follow your example and come to the next range day with their own firearms to share 🙂

    • This was something one of my friends and I started doing for folks at the office we worked at. We ended up with twenty or more folks showing up every time. I can think of only one person who didn’t purchase his own, even after a few trips, his wife wouldn’t let him.

  12. Guns are not trouble They r works of art.it’s only trouble when people use it for the wrong reasons

  13. GlockMeAmadeass should quit while he isn’t too far behind. It seems he can’t read or at least understand what the rules are. {18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) and 922(y)(2): CFR 478.11 and 478.32] seem to be very clear on which aliens may purchase firearms. Green Card Holders can and certain non-resident aliens including those who possess a valid non-resident hunting license and certain others. I’ll let him check it out further.

  14. Author: “I am not a US citizen, but…”

    Then STFU. I don’t care what you have to say. You have NO say here.

    • Good job expanding the population that supports the 2nd Amendment and way to throw the baby out with the bathwater. If it weren’t for xenophobic shit heads like you, it might be easier to expand recognized rights.

    • You don’t get to determine who can speak and who can’t here. This ain’t your blog. Come to think of it, you don’t have any say anywhere except your property.

    • Actually YOU should shut up — free speech applies to everyone, and this guy is apparently a legal resident.

      Amazing how un-American some become at the idea that newcomers might have something to say.

  15. “When you speak against gun control you are taking a stand in favor of human and civil rights. When you speak in favor of gun control you take a stand in favor of fascism.
    Nationality, race, gender, none of these matter. You either support human and civil rights or you are actively supporting tyranny.
    There is no gray area.”

    Sorry, firearms are not a birthright. The fact is that it is so opinionated that it is almost all gray. Is it not a human right to be able to travel through this world without the threat of gun violence as well? Is having to carry a firearm everywhere you go a quality of life that is the better alternative? Tyranny has nothing to do with it.

    • Roarke, the right to life is a birthright. The ability to defend that life is therefore a birthright. The method you use is up to you but guns are the best tool for the job. It is not a human right to travel through this world without the threat of violence. I wish it were. And if you think it is you might want to consult a history book or two to see the violence and destruction wrought on innocent lives throughout the millennia. Choosing to carry a gun to defend your life and the lives of those you love is a small price to pay to ensure that safety. Consider it an insurance policy or like a fire extinguisher you carry with you. Because when you need a gun nothing else will do. Frankly, if you don’t carry a gun to protect those you love you really aren’t acting like you love them. My quality of life has improved by carrying a gun. And, tyranny has everything to do with it. Just like a thug that tries to rob you the only thing political thugs understand is force because their ideas are devoid of rational thought and they just want to get their way no matter how much death and misery they cause. Good vs evil won’t end until Jesus comes back and sets things right. Plan and act accordingly. Cheers!

    • “Sorry, firearms are not a birthright.”

      Yes it is. It is unalienable to the individual.

      “The fact is that it is so opinionated that it is almost all gray.”

      Pot meet kettle. Don’t have an open mind to the extent that your brain falls out.

      “Is it not a human right to be able to travel through this world without the threat of gun violence as well?”

      No, it isn’t. There is no right to be free of risk or even fear of risk. Such a thing would be impossible to achieve in the real world. Also, there is no such thing as “gun violence.” It’s a fabricated phrase crafted by leftist morons to drive an agenda with the stupid.

      “Is having to carry a firearm everywhere you go a quality of life that is the better alternative?”

      Having the means to defend one’s self is a wonderful alternative. The tyrants (leftists, statists, other assholes) want a large number of people defenseless and dependent upon an ever growing fascist State.

      “Tyranny has nothing to do with it.”

      Tyranny has everything to do with it.

      Here’s your goat.

    • Roarke, there is no right to be free of violence of any kind. Rights aren’t whatever makes you feel good, they’re aspects of the fact of self-ownership.
      If they were whatever makes you feel good, then people would have a “right” to travel through the world without meeting atheists, or Muslims, or Buddhists, or socialists, or constitutionalists or policemen, or seeing churches, cell phone towers, recycling centers, Walmarts…..

      You own yourself. That means you have the right to defend yourself — and the right to decide what means are best. That means swords, knives, crossbows, quarterstaves, pepper spray, Taser, ball & chain, or any other personal arm — which means guns, too.

  16. ““Even a convict in prison has the right to keep and bear arms — he is just not permitted to exercise it there.”

    By that ‘logic’, the right does not exist if it cannot be exercised (is not ‘permitted’).

    That’s nothing better than “I support the 2A *but*”…”

    Huh?

    No, the right exists — period. That’s what I said: it exists despite government imposing restrictions.

  17. if and when you become a citizen, I would be proud to call you countryman. Would that more of the people born here understood the importance of the 2nd amendment as you do. welcome, brother!

    • If he’s a legal resident, I call him countryman now!!

      Just not “fellow citizen”.

    • I call him fellow free man. I don’t give a shit about nationality these days, only liberty. Slaves are not my peers. Only free people are.

      A Mexican (or any nationality for that matter), here illegally or not, that understands unalienable rights and is willing to fight for them is my brother or sister. An American who doesn’t understand and/or won’t fight for unalienable rights is nothing but an enemy to me and my liberty.

  18. Good for you, Mr. Reader SM;
    It is terribly unfair, the benefits heaped upon the ILlegal aliens. It takes quite some strength of character to persevere in the legal path. BUT, this way you do get to possess a firearm, and that is one important benefit.
    It is also sad, the quality of our education. The “Fire in the theatre” thing is easy to understand, given the reading of the “Federalist Papers”. If our education taught anything, it should have conveyed this idea: That “Rights”, in a free society, must always come with responsibilities to use those liberties to do as one pleases, to also never restrict anyone else’s right to do as THEY please, since they have the same rights as everyone else.
    This means that OF COURSE you have the right to shout fire in a crowded theatre. IF the theatre IS on fire, one has the duty to do so. BUT, IF, however, someone missuses that right, and hoaxes the public to create chaos for fun, that one is subject to arrest, and trial, and punishment for all of the damages caused… all the way up to the removal of one’s right to move, and be locked up in a cage instead.
    That is what our system of “Due Process” is. This, codified, basically, by a list of ways for the Defendant to defend himself against the charge of: Murder brought when he shouted “Fire!”, and 11 people were trampled to death in the ensuing panic. In that case he has the right to confront the survivers in open court, call his own witnesses, cross examine the State’s witnesses, etc.
    This “Due Process”, of deciding whether or not this defendant should have his rights removed is for good cause, and to what extent this should be, or is he not guilty at all, to be decided by the Jury, is the entire basis of our governmental system.
    Its a shame more don’t understand it. Especially since its so basic.

  19. You CAN yell fire in a theater, just as you CAN yell bomb on an airplane… you are responsible for the consequences if you do so falsely. This is freedom of speech… you are free to say it, but will face consequences for your actions. This is the same as the 2nd amendment.

    • It is the same for all of the amendments. And the same with all rights. They needs must go with some system of keeping people within the bonds of personal responsibility to not misuse the liberty to pursue happiness in one’s own way, by restricting another one’s rights to do the same.
      And a system to punish and/or remove from society, the ones who prove that they cannot abide by these rules. Whether such ones commit crimes through ignorance, greed, passion, or even by ‘accident’, such as would undoubtedly be the defense of the hoaxer shouting “Fire!” in an above post, is to be evaluated for guilt and a punishment (or not) decided upon by a combination of a Judge and a Jury. This is the basic system of the US law of Due Process.

  20. I was born in Canada, very much indoctrinated into ther gun control creed. However, several years of service with the army reserve taught me several things:

    1. Guns are ordinary tools, not scary magic talismans of evil.

    2. People trustworthy enough to carry guns are not a rare elite, they are common people. I know, I served with many. They were students, auto workers, mail carriers, English teachers. All of them were trusted with weapons. Some of them were trusted with command of hundreds of armed men.

    3. The government is, at best, no wiser or more moral than the rest of us.

Comments are closed.