5 ms·

Granted Im not an American, and I dont know the details, but as I read this, Americans are some how different to non-Americans. Is that correct? It reads like

by alan_cx 14y ago

Granted Im not an American, and I dont know the details, but as I read this, Americans are some how different to non-Americans. Is that correct? It reads like Americans get special protection that non Americans cant get in the hands of US law? Seems some what odd to me that all this is about Americans being held indefinitely with out trial, but for foreigners, do what you like. Aren't humans equal to Americans or US law? Seems to me that this stealthy legislation simply makes all human beings equal in US law, or at least closes the gap. How is that wrong? It just means Americans will also suffer at the hands of the US government, like non Americans do. Fair enough, no? I note there is no concern to afford non-Americans the same protections Americans get. Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc. Like I say, Im not an American and I really don't know the subtleties, but it all seems a bit skewed to me.

carbocation 14y ago
This seems like a caricature so I'm hesitant to respond in the length that this would otherwise merit. (Not saying that you know everything you claim to be ignorant on, but rather that you are caricaturing the American people which makes it difficult to know where your knowledge ends and your ignorance begins.) It also has the kind of political overtones that I'd love to discuss elsewhere, just not on HN.
candybar 14y ago
This is a weird tangent - is this not true where you're from? Every single country treats its citizens differently than non-citizens.
regularfry 14y ago
That's what this bit was about: Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States.
Jun8 14y ago
I'm not sure which country you are from but to be honest, the "all humans are equal under law" thing doesn't fly in Europe either. A relatively recent example is the German law that dictates that all non-German residents, when they marry someone overseas, should have their spouse pass a German language proficiency exam. German citizens are not required to do so. There are many other examples from Germany, and other European countries.
- julian37 14y ago
  Bad example. I'm a German citizen and my wife had to take the language exam in order to become eligible for permanent residency. Not because of any extraordinary circumstances either, just as a matter of course. I know this for a fact not only because we were subjected to it but because at the time I read up on the pertaining law. (Sorry, too lazy to dig it up now.)
leephillips 14y ago
I realize you may be exaggerating for effect, but in case you've actually been misled by sensationalist media into believing this, let me inform you that there is no significant constituency in the US for "keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes".
- scott_s 14y ago
  If by "hard core military weapons" you mean assault rifles, yes, there is. I know some of them.
  - gyardley 14y ago
    Civilians haven't been able to register fully-automatic weapons in America since 1986. I suppose they could buy a grandfathered-in weapon that was on the registry before then, but if that's the case, you have some seriously wealthy friends. Perhaps you're thinking of the semi-automatic versions available to civilians, but once you turn an 'assault rifle' into a semi-automatic it's no more lethal than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and the label is largely cosmetic. The AR-15 that lunatic recently used certainly looks scary, but since the rounds it takes are significantly less powerful than those used by your typical boring old hunting rifle, what's the point of the distinction?
    - davrosthedalek 14y ago
      I guess the possible magazine sizes play a role here. I can't imagine a hunting rifle with a 100 round mag. And aren't most of them bolt action, that is, not even semi-automatic?
      - cobrausn 14y ago
        Correct, bolt-action weapons typically do not have magazines. That does not prevent them from being used on rampages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman The lunatic who attacked the school was not trained, but was also attacking cornered, defenseless children at short range. Practically any firearm would have been used in this attack to equivalent effect. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that might have stopped this (once it started) would have been a police officer at the school or an armed teacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting). We might have better been able to prevent the shooting from taking place at all with better mental health care. They weren't even his guns, so gun control that inspects the purchaser would not have worked.
betterunix 14y ago
"Aren't humans equal to Americans or US law?" This is widely debated in America; take a look at the debates over illegal immigrants some time, especially among people from states that border with Mexico. "Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes" It is illegal to keep most military weapons in one's home in America; anything beyond a sidearm is too heavily regulated in this country. When you see pictures of Americans with military-style rifles, what you are actually looking at are civilian variants like the AR-15, which do not have a "full-auto" or "burst" mode. As an American, I can tell you what my view on this is: AR-15s and AK-47s are not the problem here. It is relatively rare for such guns to be used by criminals. Tens of thousands of people are murdered with guns each year in this country, and the majority of those murders involve handguns. While we do get the occasion lunatic who goes on a rampage with a rifle (like the recent tragedy in Connecticut, although even he carried handguns), what is more common is gang violence, and gangs prefer guns they can conceal easily: handguns. A common pattern in home burglaries is for the thief to check nightstands, dresser drawers, and other places people commonly hide handguns, because handguns are in high demand on the black market.
rayiner 14y ago
The framers of the American Constitution punted on two things: 1) where did the Constitution apply; and 2) who did the Constitution apply to. From British practice, it is clear that the Constitution at least applies to U.S. Citizens on American soil, but beyond that it's not so clear. Non-citizens on American soil have certain protections, as do U.S. Citizens not on American soil, but because these issues aren't addressed in the Constitution the law is a bit of a patchwork.
cobrausn 14y ago
Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc. If the U.S. government does decide to finally completely abandon the 5th Amendment (not an unrealistic possibility), we might need those 'hard core military weapons'. In reality, that means semi-automatic variants of standard infantry rifles, which is what many police in America keep in the trunk of their patrol car. Also, it's possible to be concerned about all of those things you mentioned. Many of us are. I think if these odd lunatics had access to better mental health care, we wouldn't be having the 'assault weapon' debate every 6 months.

by alan_cx 14y ago

carbocation 14y ago

This seems like a caricature so I'm hesitant to respond in the length that this would otherwise merit. (Not saying that you know everything you claim to be ignorant on, but rather that you are caricaturing the American people which makes it difficult to know where your knowledge ends and your ignorance begins.) It also has the kind of political overtones that I'd love to discuss elsewhere, just not on HN.

candybar 14y ago

This is a weird tangent - is this not true where you're from? Every single country treats its citizens differently than non-citizens.

regularfry 14y ago

That's what this bit was about: Civil liberties groups "aren't shedding any tears over the demise of the Feinstein-Lee amendment," because they objected to the fact that it protected only U.S. citizens and permanent residents, rather than all persons present in the United States.

Jun8 14y ago

I'm not sure which country you are from but to be honest, the "all humans are equal under law" thing doesn't fly in Europe either. A relatively recent example is the German law that dictates that all non-German residents, when they marry someone overseas, should have their spouse pass a German language proficiency exam. German citizens are not required to do so. There are many other examples from Germany, and other European countries.

julian37 14y ago
Bad example. I'm a German citizen and my wife had to take the language exam in order to become eligible for permanent residency. Not because of any extraordinary circumstances either, just as a matter of course. I know this for a fact not only because we were subjected to it but because at the time I read up on the pertaining law. (Sorry, too lazy to dig it up now.)

leephillips 14y ago

I realize you may be exaggerating for effect, but in case you've actually been misled by sensationalist media into believing this, let me inform you that there is no significant constituency in the US for "keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes".

scott_s 14y ago
If by "hard core military weapons" you mean assault rifles, yes, there is. I know some of them.
- gyardley 14y ago
  Civilians haven't been able to register fully-automatic weapons in America since 1986. I suppose they could buy a grandfathered-in weapon that was on the registry before then, but if that's the case, you have some seriously wealthy friends. Perhaps you're thinking of the semi-automatic versions available to civilians, but once you turn an 'assault rifle' into a semi-automatic it's no more lethal than a semi-automatic hunting rifle, and the label is largely cosmetic. The AR-15 that lunatic recently used certainly looks scary, but since the rounds it takes are significantly less powerful than those used by your typical boring old hunting rifle, what's the point of the distinction?
  - davrosthedalek 14y ago
    I guess the possible magazine sizes play a role here. I can't imagine a hunting rifle with a 100 round mag. And aren't most of them bolt action, that is, not even semi-automatic?
    - cobrausn 14y ago
      Correct, bolt-action weapons typically do not have magazines. That does not prevent them from being used on rampages. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman The lunatic who attacked the school was not trained, but was also attacking cornered, defenseless children at short range. Practically any firearm would have been used in this attack to equivalent effect. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing that might have stopped this (once it started) would have been a police officer at the school or an armed teacher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting). We might have better been able to prevent the shooting from taking place at all with better mental health care. They weren't even his guns, so gun control that inspects the purchaser would not have worked.

betterunix 14y ago

"Aren't humans equal to Americans or US law?" This is widely debated in America; take a look at the debates over illegal immigrants some time, especially among people from states that border with Mexico. "Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes" It is illegal to keep most military weapons in one's home in America; anything beyond a sidearm is too heavily regulated in this country. When you see pictures of Americans with military-style rifles, what you are actually looking at are civilian variants like the AR-15, which do not have a "full-auto" or "burst" mode. As an American, I can tell you what my view on this is: AR-15s and AK-47s are not the problem here. It is relatively rare for such guns to be used by criminals. Tens of thousands of people are murdered with guns each year in this country, and the majority of those murders involve handguns. While we do get the occasion lunatic who goes on a rampage with a rifle (like the recent tragedy in Connecticut, although even he carried handguns), what is more common is gang violence, and gangs prefer guns they can conceal easily: handguns. A common pattern in home burglaries is for the thief to check nightstands, dresser drawers, and other places people commonly hide handguns, because handguns are in high demand on the black market.

rayiner 14y ago

The framers of the American Constitution punted on two things: 1) where did the Constitution apply; and 2) who did the Constitution apply to. From British practice, it is clear that the Constitution at least applies to U.S. Citizens on American soil, but beyond that it's not so clear. Non-citizens on American soil have certain protections, as do U.S. Citizens not on American soil, but because these issues aren't addressed in the Constitution the law is a bit of a patchwork.

cobrausn 14y ago

Besides, from abroad, it very much looks like Americans are more concerned about keeping hold of hard core military weapons in their homes to be used against the odd burglar, than freedom, health, etc. If the U.S. government does decide to finally completely abandon the 5th Amendment (not an unrealistic possibility), we might need those 'hard core military weapons'. In reality, that means semi-automatic variants of standard infantry rifles, which is what many police in America keep in the trunk of their patrol car. Also, it's possible to be concerned about all of those things you mentioned. Many of us are. I think if these odd lunatics had access to better mental health care, we wouldn't be having the 'assault weapon' debate every 6 months.