It is a moral outrage and national disgrace that civilians can legally purchase weapons designed to kill people with brutal speed and efficiency.Indeed. You need a hunting rifle, or even two of them? fine. You need a couple dozen military-style assault weapons and extra-large clips? I don't think so. My thanks to the NYT editorial board for saying so.
NOTE 12/6/2015 9:14PM CT: Some sort of problem afflicted Blogger for at least an hour that I know about. The service itself and comments appear to be restarting now; viewing is intermittent. Patience, please, and apologies for any trouble you experience(d).
I posted this at lean left:
ReplyDeleteI am an immigrant and I’d favor laws limiting gun sales to citizens. That certainly would be constitutional. It would also diminish a talking point.
Immigrants are no different than Americans but are,perhaps by necessity, treated somewhat differently by law. From the American Immigration Council:
“the laws mandated the detention and deportation of noncitizens (legal permanent residents and unauthorized immigrants alike) who had been convicted of an “aggravated felony.” Second, the laws expanded the list of offenses which qualify as “aggravated felonies” for immigration purposes (including tax evasion, failure to appear in court, and receipt of stolen property). Moreover, the laws also applied this new standard retroactively to offenses committed years before the laws were enacted”.
Immigrants know this and that gives them a great deal of incentive to make sure that they and their kids do not get into situations that causes that hammer to fall. I was 40 years an immigrant before I became naturalized (what a word! I was unnatural before then hey?) and I was very much aware of that hammer.
...
One other reason I feel that way: It Juxtaposes anti-immigration (attitude 'de Jour') with Gun rights Fervor.
Shirt, here's a quick note; for a full reply I will have to wait a day or two: the Bill of Rights is largely indifferent to whether you are a citizen by birth or naturalization or (one presumes legal) immigrant: Amendments I-X refer to "person," "persons" or "people," but never to "citizen" or "citizens." Things pertinent to citizenship begin in Amendments XI, and XIV (incl. defining citizenship), and those certainly have nothing to do with firearms. Amendment II specifies "people," and presumably permits non-citizen legal immigrants to "keep and bear arms" at least in service to the USA. IANAL, so I can only presume that if they can use arms, they can buy arms, subject to the same constraints as citizens.
DeleteI'll address your topics in a later comment.
I've found to my (somewhat naive) surprise that many people seem to equate "gun control" with "banning all weapons thereby leading straight to a Nazi state just like happened in Germany". I'm still puzzled . . . and somewhat appalled that people equate the 2.
ReplyDeletec, the N~R~A has done a very effective job of deceiving the American public about exactly what the amended Constitution says about firearms and what the Supreme Court has ruled concerning their usage. Moreover, they have all but THREATENED members of Congress with immediate loss of their seats next election if they dare to challenge the will of that association. Hence in practice all necessary or useful regulations are squelched before they even get started. I generally dislike those who apply the term "sheeple" to the American body politic, but I confess this is an issue on which Americans' attitude has been successfully externally distorted to the point of perversion. I wish I could see a way that could be changed, but I can't..
Delete