Gun Owners of America Not Supporting Gun Rights for Legal Resident Aliens

[__27__]

Oh noes, the BROWN people want guns! We can't haz that shit.

Racists...nationalists...statists...

[Vessol]

Anyone has the natural right of self defense for their property and selves.

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have or where their parents fucked.

[osan]

I wasn't aware that Larry had said this, and it seems to me that it was taken out of context.

The article states:

"But Gun Owners of America Executive Director Larry Pratt says the state has every right to restrict conceal and carry permits to citizens."

Fox does not quote him as saying this, which is abundantly suspicious. Did he or did he not say this? If he did not, I would have my lawyers look at it and if possible sue the pants off Fox.

Fox quotes Pratt as having stated:

"If the guy wants to enjoy the full benefit of residing in the United States become a citizen. He’s been here for 30 years what’s he waiting for?," Pratt told FoxNews.com.

You have a legitimate point. I did not read with sufficient care and this possibility squeaked past me. If by chance Fox is playing games, then I retract my "cretin" remark and direct it to Fox, who are cretinous anyway.

[osan]

I think it's admirable that you hold uncompromising beliefs

More people should, IMO.

but uncompromising beliefs don't accomplish anything but "at-a-boys" from other like minded people.

Says who? Seriously, what can you cite to back such a strong and broadly stated claim?

I would love it if we didn't have to compromise in order to exercise our rights,

It is ignorance, complacency and compromise that got us here. Do you honestly believe that more of the same will yield anything different? Please recall the definition of "insanity".

in this atmosphere, we have to.

To my mind this is the brand of thinking that is used as the excuse for giving in to tyranny. Better to have pretty slavery than ugly. Come on man, where is your mind? How far are you willing willing to cede your inborn, natural, and inalienable birthright? I am not willing to cede so much as an angstrom. Screw that noise. Nobody stand above me. Nobody runs me. Nobody masters me. They hold no authority over me whatsoever. All they have is force - unvarnished violence - and I stand and speak against it at every turn.

Just as our rights were chipped away at, we have to chip away to get them back.

This is a different sense altogether. Perhaps we have been talking past each other.

[CCTelander]

Anyone has the natural right of self defense for their property and selves.

It doesn't matter what color of skin they have or where their parents fucked.

Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.

[__27__]

Absolutely.

Threads like this serve to strengthen my belief that when freedom actually does come here to the US, and it will, it will come IN SPITE OF the so-called liberty movement, not BECAUSE OF anything they've done.

++

[ChrisKuper]

Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

[__27__]

Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

So just to clarify, you believe that a human born on one side of an imaginary line has some set of special rights over another born on the other side of said imaginary line?

EDIT: Sorry, I guest I can't read, or maybe just can't comprehend. Didn't notice this was an email to you at first, maybe italics it or change color or something. >.<

[Matt Collins]

Email from Larry to me:

The ACLU's logic can lead to tearing down our border - that there are no rights unique to American citizenship, so, hey, let everyone come in. That same logic allows the state to take away the right to keep and bear arms of a citizen. We have argued in court that only a citizen can lose his right to keep and bear arms by renouncing his citizenship. The current view that citizenship is no big deal has led to a progressive encirclement of the exercise of our rights. We gave gone from denying the right to keep and bear arms to felons, then to those with misdemeanors, now to those with certain medical diagnoses (and that without any due process).

We must make the distinction between citizens and others.

The American constitutional order is one of rights for citizens. Any enjoyment of those rights by non-citizens is a privilege in constitutional terms. The ACLU, as usual, is wrong in this case. It is for the state of South Dakota to determine whether legal non-citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. I don't agree with their new policy, but constitutionally, they are within their power to so act.

Looks to me like Larry does not understand the concept of natural rights That is unfortunate because I completely disagree with him in this instance.

I do believe the government has the power to police their borders and decide who may and may not enter, but within the borders the Constitution protects everyone. Government doesn't grant rights, it merely protects them. Government can only grant privileges. I don't have a problem with government granting some privileges to citizens, but that doesn't mean it can disparage the rights of non-citizens.

Oh well, I still like Larry and the GOA. He's a great guy and it's a great organization and this one particular issue, although pretty substantial, is not going to deter me from my support.

[shemdogg]

should i retract my life membership payments?