Is there room for compromise in gun rights vs gun control?

Taking away someone's life is a permanent revocation of an unalienable right. Your tortured logic about suspension versus permanent deprivation loses it's coherence at that point.

 

You sir, are clueless. America was built on Christian principles. Yet you are about to resort to a humanist argument.

Your tortured logic leads people into the depths of despair and darkness. You are willing to compromise unalienable Rights for no reason other than your ignorance of the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded.

If two people have an equal Right to Life, but one person takes away the life of another, unless society takes out the murderer, the constitutional guarantee is meaningless. So, society, based upon the morality that we were founded in accordance with, eliminates the murderer. It is the only choice we have in order to maintain the guarantee. You are preying upon people's weakness, hoping that they are equally ignorant as you. Then again, maybe you do know better.

The Bill of Rights is a journey, not a destination. An unalienable Right means that the Right is given by a Creator (their God, whomever they deem that to be.) It does not mean that someone cannot take your life by an immoral / illegal / wrongful means. The principle is, government is not empowered to do it to an individual and, if an individual does it to their fellow man, the government (representing society) will permanently remove the murderer so as to preserve the unalienable Rights of all of citizenry.

"In short, is not liberty the freedom of every person to make full use of his faculties, so long as he does not harm other persons while doing so?" Frederic Bastiat

"You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the great struggle for independence." -- Attributed to Charles Austin Beard (1874-194

 

You are using tortured logic. You do understand that the Constitution was not written under purely Christian principles. It was written under the principles of the Enlightenment. There is no way we can have capital punishment if rights are unalienable. That is a permanent loss of rights that cannot ever be undone, plain and simple. To be more precise, your rights cannot be purely taken away ever, but your actions can result in the forfeit of your rights. If you commit certain crimes, you have forfeited your rights--your actions takes away your rights. I believe this stands for the right to vote and the right to bear arms as well as the right to freedom. If I choose to commit a felony, I have chosen to give up certain rights, if I should be convicted under due process.

 

It is a permanent loss of Rights when a murderer kills someone. Here is a link to help you understand YOUR tortured "logic."

https://www.gotquestions.org/death-penalty.html

If a murderer takes away your Right to Life, he cannot replace it. That is why certain crimes merit the death penalty. OTOH, owning a firearm to protect your Life is an unalienable Right. Jesus instructed his apostles to carry a sword (the equivalent of what Caesar's SWAT Team would have carried) even if they had to hock their robes to buy it.

You can be tried for certain crimes, but once you are put back into society, you retain your God given, unalienable Rights. Otherwise, other people could hunt you down and kill you without fear of retribution from the government. So, if you leave prison and return to society, the system is saying you are rehabilitated and have paid for your crime. It only stands to reason that if you have a Right to Life after leaving prison, you have a Right and a duty to protect that Life as the LEO community is NOT responsible for your individual safety.

The "right to vote" is NOT unalienable, but more like a government created privilege that they grant and call a "right."

 

Actually they don't need to live in the United States permanently to become US citizens. They can simply obtain a residency visa, maintain a residence, visit annually, and become then become naturalized.

There's also no requirement for them to become naturalized citizens after they obtain a permanent residency visa.

Once again let's simply look at an "originalist" interpretation of the Constitution.

No where in the US Constitution does it grant any authority to the federal government to control immigration. Textual interpretation (what the Constitution literally states) does not support our immigration laws.

In addressing "original intent" the founders and authors of the Constitution openly, and in writing, opposed limiting immigration because that limitation violated the fundamental Right of Liberty of the person which why the Constitution granted no authority to Congress to control immigration. The omission was intentional. As Jefferson wrote the Right of Expatriation (i.e. the right of the person to relocate from their country of birth to their country of choice) is a natural right that cannot justifiably be violated by even the entire population of a nation.

http://famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/thomasjefferson/jeff1280.htm

The "illegal" (undocumented) immigrants to the United States are here with the blessing of Thomas Jefferson. I'll accept Jefferson's arguments over the arguments of any White Nationalist/White Supremacist in America today that opposes the Right of Liberty that's exercised by immigration.

 

And so you agree: immigration is an inherent part of naturalization. Thank you.
Enter: The elastic clause.
/ Topic

 

No it was not. It was built upon America's First Principles.

http://www.americassurvivalguide.com/americas-first-principles.php

The First Principles are not Christian principles and many Americans, such as my maternal ancestors that arrived in the American colonies in the mid-1700's, came here to escape the "Christian principles" that resulted in their oppression under the Anglican Church of England.

 

Immigration is not an inherent part of citizenship, immigration does not imply citizenship, naturalization is not an inherent part of immigration, and all of our immigration laws starting with the very first Chinese Exclusion Act have been based upon racism to prevent non-WASP's from immigrating to the United States with the singular purpose of preserving the institution of WASP Male Supremacy in our social, economic, and political institutions.

 

Immigration IS an inherent component of naturalization. Your example proves this.
The elastic clause does the rest.

 

The first governing document of the New World was the Mayflower Compact. I suggest you read it along with the earliest state constitutions.

 

Finally, you are correct up to a point. The current immigration laws were put into place to dilute the white people's vote by giving non-whites preference to be citizens.

The word immigration is not in the Constitution. The Constitution grants Congress one thing and on thing only:

"to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization" (Article 1 Section Eight)

Immigration, the migration of people to engage in lawful business, was a state's right until 1875 when the United States Supreme Court granted Congress "plenary powers" over immigration. The real issue is, the United States Supreme Court has NO AUTHORITY to give any branch a power not delegated in the Constitution. That power grab was a prime example of legislating from the bench.

 

The United States was not founded based upon the Mayflower Compact and the founders of the United States explicitly rejected religion, including Christianity, as being the foundation for the nation because religion always results in tyranny. John Locke's Second Treatise of Civil Government that established the foundation for Natural (unalienable/inalienable) Rights was the singular most important document of ideological principles in the founding of America and the Bible had zero relevance except by coincidence when it accidently addressed "natural rights" based upon "natural law" that the Bible never addresses.

If anything the Jefferson Bible where all supernatural and religious texts were removed so that it could be looked at as a philosophical manuscript is about as close to Christianity and the founders got.

 

Excuse me for calling "BS" on this claim because I'm going to demand proof that there was, at any time, a restriction placed upon the immigration of WASP's that created a "waiting list" or complete "denial" of WASP's from immigrating to the United States at will. Under what law and how many WASP's wanting to immigrate were denied in what years. Show me.

WASP's have always been free to immigrate to the United States at will and become citizens but that's not true for virtually every other group I can think of. Catholics were prohibited from immigrating, Jews were prohibited from immigrating. Asians were prohibited from immigrating. Hispanics were prohibited from immigrating. Arabs and Persians were prohibited from immigration. WASP were never prohibited from immigrating.

As for voting the requirement for "citizenship" doesn't exist in the US Constitution and both Article I and the 17th Amendment that specify who is to elect members of the House and Senate both explicitly state the "People" and not the subgroup of just "Citizens" are to elect members of Congress. Additionally we know that non-citizens had a widespread right to vote in over 40 states and territories until immediately after the ratification of the 14th, requiring equal protection, and 15th Amendment that prohibited denial of the right to vote based upon race for citizens that would also have applied to non-citizen voting based upon the equal protection clause. The denial of the right to vote by non-citizens following the Civil War was for the same reason that we see our first immigration laws. It was exclusively about retaining White (WASP)Male Supremacy in our social, economic, and political institutions. In short both were based upon racism, religious intolerance, and misogyny that we (the United States) inherited from England when the nation was founded.

The Declaration of Independence established that the powers of government are granted by the "governed" and the non-citizen permanent resident, could as one of the people every ten years by the federal government, is governed the same as the permanent resident citizen. The two are indistinguishable when it comes to the Rights of the Person with the only difference being that citizen enjoy certain privileges and immunities that non-citizens don't have.

And yet we've never really had a "uniform Rule of Naturalization" as preferential treatment was always given to WASP's or "White Men" beginning with the Naturalization Act of 1790 that limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. Once again naturalization, or more properly the a ""uniform Rule of Naturalization" has nothing to do with immigration and it certainly wouldn't be "uniform" if people are being denied the ability to immigrate to begin with.

According to Thomas Jefferson the states didn't have the authority to limit immigration either. Laws restricting immigration would be in direct violation of the Ninth Amendment's protections of unenumerated rights that would include the Right of Liberty.

If we address immigration restrictions as an infringement upon the liberty of the person then the application of "Strict Scrutiny" applies to the Supreme Court's decision. Under strict scrutiny the immigration law is considered unconstitutional and the requirement is for the government to provide a "compelling state's interest" to justify the law. Only two criteria would really apply. Does the act of entering the United States by an immigrant for peaceful purposed (e.g. work or to live with family) violate any other person's rights. It does not. Next would be if the immigrant coming to the United States imposes an involuntary obligation upon another person. Once again the answer is no because even our welfare programs are based upon a voluntary obligation to provide the assistance granted by the legislature that represents the people.

Whether granting authority to the federal government was "power-grabbing" from the states and an example of legislating from the bench is arguable. While states had imposed immigration restrictions prior to that, as noted, they really didn't have the authority to do that. At the same time the immigration restriction could only be imposed on those individuals entering the state directly from a foreign country because the state could not restrict access from other states. So a person denied immigration in Maine, for example, could enter the United States through another state like New York that allowed them in and then relocate to Maine from New York because they were already an established immigrant and Maine was obligated to accept their legal immigration based upon the Faith and Full Credit clause of the Constitution.

My position is that the immigrations restrictions should have all been struck down because they violate a fundamental unalienable/inalienable (Natural) Right of the Person that our government is supposed to be protecting and not violating.

 

You misrepresented my post. This thread is NOT about whether or not America was founded on Christian principles; however, from the time of the Mayflower Compact down to recent years, it has been impossible to deny the role of America's religious roots.

I'll leave you with a few paragraphs from an article that challenge your view and leave at that... if you disagree, I will gladly join you in another forum to debate this subject:

"The Declaration of Independence, the most famous document produced by the Continental Congress during the War for Independence, proclaims: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” As well, this text references “the laws of nature and of nature’s God” and closes by “appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world” and noting the signers’ “reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” The Founders’ use of Christian rhetoric and arguments becomes even more evident if one looks at other statements of colonial rights and concerns such as the Suffolk Resolves, the Declaration of Rights, and the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking up Arms—to say nothing of the dozen explicitly Christian calls for prayer, fasting, and thanksgiving issued by the Continental and Confederation Congresses.[15]

Some scholars have argued that the use of “distant” words for God or “vague and generic God-language” like “Nature’s God,” Creator,” and “Providence” in the Declaration and other texts is evidence that the Founders were deists.[16] However, indisputably orthodox Christians regularly used such appellations.

For instance, the Westminster Standards (a classic Reformed confession of faith), both in the original 1647 version and in the 1788 American revision, refer to the deity as “the Supreme Judge,” “the great Creator of all things,” “the first cause,” “righteous judge,” “God the Creator,” and “the supreme Law and King of all the world.” The Standards also regularly reference God’s providence and even proclaim that “[t]he light of nature showeth that there is a God….” Similarly, Isaac Watts, the “father of English Hymnody,” referred to the deity as “nature’s God” in a poem about Psalm 148: 10. Jeffry H. Morrison has argued persuasively that the Declaration’s references to “‘divine Providence’ and ‘the Supreme Judge of the World’ would have been quite acceptable to Reformed Americans in 1776, and conjured up images of the ‘distinctly biblical God’ when they heard or read the Declaration.”

http://www.heritage.org/political-process/report/did-america-have-christian-founding

 

But -not- on the grounds that the federal government has no constitutional authority to set limits, restrictions, and requirements on immigration...?
Looks like you agree with me.

 

I agree with your position relative to immigration; however, you can call B.S. all you want on the issue of race, but calling B.S. and putting up irrelevant walls of text does not, in any way, shape, fashion or form disprove the facts.

The quota system we have in place now was forced into law by Democrat Ted Kennedy. The Hart-Celler Act changed the quota systems and, while it looks harmless on the outside, one must remember that America was founded by whites and at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, about 98 percent of the American people were white Christians.

When other countries can come here equally, you have to consider that whites are only 1 in THIRTEEN of the world's population; therefore, when other countries immigrate came here "equally," it upset the homogeneous culture America had developed. It made our country first racially mixed and in the near future not only will whites be the minority, they will be virtually extinct within a couple more generations.

 

The limits are more about Naturalization as opposed to migration of people to engage in lawful business pursuits.

A broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day and this issue will be one of only two I'd ever agree with those trolling a gun rights thread for a referendum on immigration.

 

Nor would the states or the people have the "power" to limit immigration because the 9th Amendment acknowledges the unenumerated rights of the person, including the Right of Liberty that includes the "right of expatriation" (immigration). The protection under the 9th Amendment creates a prohibition against violation by the States/People. The 10th Amendment expressly establishes that the States or the People do not have the "power" to violate a prohibition imposed by the Constitution.

 

Article I Section 8 does not authorize the Congress to limit naturalization. Instead it mandates and authorizes Congress to create uniform laws of naturalization.

For example the Congress could pass a naturalization law where everyone becomes a US citizen after five years of permanent residency. That is a "uniform naturalization law" because it is the same for everyone. It is not uniform if it allows someone from England to immigrate to the US so they can spend five years here and become a naturalized citizen but denies someone from Mexico the ability to immigrant here and spend five years to become a naturalized citizen.

 

That was the actual problem but it wasn't the 98% but instead a much smaller percent that were WASP men, basically with wealth, that controlled to social, economic, and political institutions that were the first "conservatives." With their political power they legislated laws to retain that control with laws that only allowed WASP men that owned property and/or paid taxes to vote. Basically they legislated (wealthy) WASP Male Supremacy in our voting laws, This was juxtaposed to our founding ideology that established that the "governments are instituted by the people and derive their just powers from the consent of the governed."

These same "conservatives" also retained the English laws of property ownership that allowed them to "possess that which they had no right to possess" to protect their wealth (and to allow them to own slaves) that violated the ideology of the unalienable (natural) rights of property where possession is based upon the right to possess and is not based upon a certificate of title (ownership).

Since our founding it's been "conservative" ideologies of White Anglo Saxon Protestant Men to retain control of our social, economic, and political institutions that have stood as the barrier to achieving the ideology upon which America was founded.

The original and only true National Motto of the United States established in 1776:

E PLURIBUS UNUM
(From Many, One)​

It doesn't matter what race, religion, national heritage, cultural background, or any other characteristic of the person might be because we unite as a nation based upon our political ideology. The problem remains those that are White Nationalists that disparage others that accept and embrace our political ideology but are not WASP's. America was never intended to be an "UNUM - UNUM" (from one, one) nation. The only homogeneous culture of importance is the culture of our political ideology that all Americans are to embrace. Those that refer to any other culture, such as the "white Protestant" culture, are rejecting the one culture that matters and that's our political culture.

 

We're not talking about the states, we're talking about the federal government. Try not to wander off, avoid the issue, or lamely attempt to confuse the issue with extraneous garbage.

You, yourself, admit, in your example, that immigration is an inherent part of naturalization, as someone must first undergo some sort of immigration process to become a naturalized citizen.

Congress has the power to
- establish a uniform rule of naturalization.
- make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers

That said, how, under the elastic clause, does Congress -not- have the power to regulate immigration, when, as you admit, immigration is an inherent part of naturalization?

 

You do love to argue!!! The problem is, you are wrong.

According to Wikipedia:

"Whites (including Non-Hispanic Whites) have historically made up the overwhelming majority (usually between eighty and ninety percent) of the total United States population."

Furthermore, according to that same article, of the 3,929, 214 Americans counted in the 1790 census, 3,172,006 were white.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_racial_and_ethnic_demographics_of_the_United_States

Of course, in your mind, you'd like to make this a race issue - and one reason is, you aren't smart enough to understand that this is a thread about gun control, not race. So IQ here is paramount. I told you before, if you want to discuss this issue, start a thread.

At the end of the day, most every early state constitution required one to be a white Protestant in order to be eligible to vote or hold public office. And most of us are familiar with the Dred Scott v Sanford court decision.

You want that to add up to an alt-right argument, but you won't be criticizing China - which is 98 percent Han Chinese AND I don't see none of your kind holding public office there. Maybe we should try Japan - yep, ethnic Japanese are 98.5 percent of that country. Nobody screams racism at them.

 

Got hand it to you. You are consistently WRONG.

"The original United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1 Stat. 103) provided the first rules to be followed by the United States in the granting of national citizenship. This law limited naturalization to immigrants who were free white persons of good character. It thus excluded American Indians, indentured servants, slaves, free blacks and later Asians although free blacks were allowed citizenship at the state level in certain states."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments ought to clear up any other confusion - unless you can show where, in the Constitution, the United States Supreme Court is given the authority to empower Congress with any power not specifically listed in the Constitution.

 

Shiva_TD is generally 98 percent wrong most of the time. But, even a broken clock has the potential to be right twice a day.

The reason that Congress cannot dictate to the states who may come and who may go is because you either have unalienable Rights OR you do not. If you don't agree, then you have to be consistent. Give the federal government that power and you lose the ability to argue when the government wants to take your gun, tell you what religion you should belong to, what books / movies you can own, and anything else you can think of covered under unalienable Rights.

 

The states are irrelevant here -- we're talking about entry into the United States.
There is no right of any kind to enter the US for anyone other than citizens and certain legal aliens -- and even these people are subject to ICE.