4 ms·

Incorrect. When a part of the constitution wants to describe the requirement of citizen or not, it will specifically say. "No Person except a natural born Cit

Incorrect. When a part of the constitution wants to describe the requirement of citizen or not, it will specifically say. "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." "No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

salamanderss 3y ago
So aliens have the right to bear arms in the US?
- jessenaser 3y ago
  Yes. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-st... But some of the restrictions may be on how the constitution was worded. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies that that person has an interest in the United States, instead of being a visitor. So only nonimmigrant visa aliens have a hard time, but there are exceptions. Even so, law that exists does not imply that it is correct or just with other laws. The AI tool in the article or some of the restrictions are up for debate on their legality. The same way why people debate gun restrictions on their constitutionality.
  - salamanderss 3y ago
    Ah k so those on non-immigrant visas aren't people, unless they buy hunting license to become a people? Does that make sense to you?
    - jessenaser 3y ago
      No. They are obviously still people. I said either: the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," modifies the requirement to those with an interest in the United States, instead of visitors. OR The current laws are unjust by being unconstitutional.
      - salamanderss 3y ago
        Heller made clear that right of people is individual rights of persons. So for instance you still have fourth amendment right even when by yourself. Heller also clarifies the right is disconnected from militia service. I'm just looking for a single logically consistent person to admit that aliens (not just those with a hunting license or other credential) are people with all the rights of people, or not people and not protected specifically by what is narrowed to protection of people. You were painfully close.
        jessenaser 3y ago
        Aliens are people with all the rights of people.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        I've been debating this with various people for years and you're the first person willing to pick one or the other. For the record I'm in agreement, although imo neither answer is wrong as long as consistent. What is insane to me is that almost no one including the courts want to address that harsh logical inconsistency through much beyond high IQ handwaving.
        jessenaser 3y ago
        Yes, the second amendment should apply even if you are a visitor. If a citizen just needs a license to own, then you just need a license. I was just saying that that clause in the second amendment could be the only possible way a court could argue otherwise. Because the constitution states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, only that clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," could modify that. But I don't think it does, but a lot of Supreme Court justices have a lot of ideas about the clause. Only should voting (including running for office) and immigration should be tied to citizenship. I think we have the same ideas. A lot of people in the comments were arguing that non citizens should not have freedom of speech. That is pretty weird and unconstitutional.

salamanderss 3y ago

So aliens have the right to bear arms in the US?

jessenaser 3y ago
Yes. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-states-purchase-firearms https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/may-aliens-legally-united-st... But some of the restrictions may be on how the constitution was worded. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," implies that that person has an interest in the United States, instead of being a visitor. So only nonimmigrant visa aliens have a hard time, but there are exceptions. Even so, law that exists does not imply that it is correct or just with other laws. The AI tool in the article or some of the restrictions are up for debate on their legality. The same way why people debate gun restrictions on their constitutionality.
- salamanderss 3y ago
  Ah k so those on non-immigrant visas aren't people, unless they buy hunting license to become a people? Does that make sense to you?
  - jessenaser 3y ago
    No. They are obviously still people. I said either: the clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," modifies the requirement to those with an interest in the United States, instead of visitors. OR The current laws are unjust by being unconstitutional.
    - salamanderss 3y ago
      Heller made clear that right of people is individual rights of persons. So for instance you still have fourth amendment right even when by yourself. Heller also clarifies the right is disconnected from militia service. I'm just looking for a single logically consistent person to admit that aliens (not just those with a hunting license or other credential) are people with all the rights of people, or not people and not protected specifically by what is narrowed to protection of people. You were painfully close.
      - jessenaser 3y ago
        Aliens are people with all the rights of people.
        salamanderss 3y ago
        I've been debating this with various people for years and you're the first person willing to pick one or the other. For the record I'm in agreement, although imo neither answer is wrong as long as consistent. What is insane to me is that almost no one including the courts want to address that harsh logical inconsistency through much beyond high IQ handwaving.
      - jessenaser 3y ago
        Yes, the second amendment should apply even if you are a visitor. If a citizen just needs a license to own, then you just need a license. I was just saying that that clause in the second amendment could be the only possible way a court could argue otherwise. Because the constitution states: "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." So, only that clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," could modify that. But I don't think it does, but a lot of Supreme Court justices have a lot of ideas about the clause. Only should voting (including running for office) and immigration should be tied to citizenship. I think we have the same ideas. A lot of people in the comments were arguing that non citizens should not have freedom of speech. That is pretty weird and unconstitutional.