President of the US Picks

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

My argument has never been that the Constitution applies to foreigners.

Of course it has. You even went so far as to state on several occasions that legal tourists and immigrants could waltz right into the US fully armed based on the 2nd Amendment.

Because congress doesn’t have the authority to infringe on the ability to keep and bears arms per the second.

[anon50325502]

I love how you’re telling me what my argument is…

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

I even said it adds context, shhh.

Adds context? A legal document that states what/who the legal document is intended for is merely adding context?

The preamble does not state what/who the document is intended for, at least not explicitly. It states who ordained and established it.

“We the people of the United States…do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”

Words matter or they don’t.

@pushharder

he US military via congressional authority has been disarming foreigners for centuries. C’mon, you have to know this. US occupying forces have done this in every war since the War of 1812. Good grief.

“In every war”

Completely different context and has zero to do with what I originally wrote. You’re twisting my words.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

@anon50325502

“In every war”

Completely different context and has zero to do with what I originally wrote. You’re twisting my words.

You’ve stated over and over again that the 2nd Amendment applies to foreigners outside of the US. It’s all there in black and white. Shall I copy and paste?

Ya, I think you should copy and paste.

[anon50325502]

@anon50325502

@pushharder

@anon50325502

My argument is that Congress does not have the authority to make any law, regardless of who the law affects, that establishes or prohibit the exercise of any religion.

Well then, I reckon you will be arguing that any foreigner can freely enter this country carrying as many weapons as they so desire because after all, your argument is that Congress does not have the authority to make any law, regardless of who the law affects, that infringes on the right of the people – any people --to keep and bear Arms. Right?

Foreigners cannot freely enter this country, though, but yes if we allow them to enter, ie they fulfill the necessary parameters to enter under our immigration laws than they cannot be denied solely on the grounds that they are armed. It’s a Congressional overreeach.

You don’t like what the constitution says, change it. That was my response in the 2nd amendment thread and that is my response now.

Here, I’ll even help.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

Dead wrong.

Their arms will be confiscated.

Are you purposefully being argumentative? That’s my opinion on how I believe the constitution reads. That’s what you asked for. Ya, they’d be confiscated now. That doesn’t mean it’s constitutional or right.
[/quote]

And another. Still no argumrnt from me that the second applies to foreigners.

[therajraj]

@anon50325502

Here’s an example

Trump's Ban On Muslim Travel Would Be A $3.5 Billion Blunder

The argument from this article: Saudi’s spend a lot of money in America mostly in the form of education (visiting students) therefore a muslim ban would be bad.

First of all, if large amounts of Saudis are taking up precious spots in prestigious universities then going back home, how is it a net loss if they stop coming over? Instead, more Americans would get admitted into top tier schools and rather than lose that intellectual capital when they return back to Saudi Arabia, it will be used in the economy by natives who received those placements. Currently, the real unemployment rate is in April 2016 is 22.9% Alternate Unemployment Charts

So who really would you want filling those spots, Saudi rich kids or local americans?

Secondly, to what degree should other countries influence US legislation? Is the US not a sovereign country? Just a thought when you say we shouldn’t enact policy that could potentially “offend” outsiders. Slippery slope.

[anon50325502]

@pushharder

“Help?”

Yes, help. Where in that quote did I say the Constitution applies to foreigners? It ain’t in there.

@pushharder

If you’re not saying foreigners can’t be stopped at the border and denied due to them carrying weapons then what are you saying?

I am saying that immigrants have to pass our immigration requirements to enter the country first and if they meet all of our requirements to enter the country then we should not be disarming them simply because they are foreigners. The constitutionality of what I wrote is arguable, I don’t deny that; however, the disarming of people as they enter our country is not in keeping with our history and certainly not the founders vision for this country.

That is what I meant here:

“…if we allow them to enter, ie they fulfill the necessary parameters to enter under our immigration laws…”

@pushharder

Bottom line is the Congress does not have to allow a Indian Muslim entering the US at the Canadian or Mexican border to carry a weapon. So the Congress and its enforcer, the executive branch, does not honor the 2nd Amendment on Canadian or Mexican soil.

I don’t completely follow what you are saying, but I’m not referring to anything happens anywhere other than on U.S. soil.

“Shall not be infringed” This is the same argument, you agreed with over and over again in TBs most recent 2nd amendment thread.

Let me ask you this:

If an immigrant landed in NY in 1789 would the newly formed government confiscate his weapons?

If a Fench frigate docked in Charleston, SC in 1789 would the newly formed government take their cannons?

I highly doubt the answer is yes.

@pushharder

“If we allow them to enter they can’t be denied.”

That isn’t what I said.

@pushharder

Maybe you’re saying if we allow them to enter (unarmed) they can’t be denied bearing arms after they are already in the US? Is that what you mean?

In other words, they are free to arm themselves once they are in the US?

I’m saying Congress does not have the authority to undermine what is written in the Bill of Rights, period. I don’t care what type of law they are writing or who it effects Congress is not supposed to make any law that infringes on the people’s ability to keep and bear arms. Yes, I’m aware you will say “the people” refers to U.S. citizens. You don’t need to say it.

I read the BOR as TB pointed out, as absolute in nature and universal in application on U.S. sovereign soil.

@pushharder

In every war and in even peace. For instance, do you think a German citizen has a 2nd Amendment right to walk into Ramstein Air Base armed?

If Ramstein Air Base is sovereign U.S. soil and they meet all other parameters of entry then yes. They are technically on our soil where the Constitution reigns supreme and the second amendment, IMO, is explicit. “Shall not be infringed”

@pushharder

German citizens were stripped of their right by the US government to carry arms in Germany in 1945 and 1946 during peace (post May 1945). They were also stripped of their right to carry in 1945 during war (pre May 1945).

Same thing happened to Iraqis a few years ago.

The 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to foreigners on foreign soil. Not to Germans in Germany. Not to Iraqis in Iraq. Not to Indian Muslims standing in Canada and Mexico trying to enter the US.

Has nothing to do with what I’m talking about. I never claimed the BOR applies to foreigners on foreign soil.

It applies on U.S. soil to everyone. That is why illegal aliens are afforded due process, for example.

As I have said repeated in various threads perverting the meaning of the plain English words of the Constitution is a travesty. If you don’t like what it says, change it.

Bottom line: I believe the Constitution limits, in this case, Congressional authority to make laws that restrict the free exercise of religion or infringe on the keeping or bearing of arms or the ability to illegal search and seize property or denying due process and so on and so forth.

@therajraj

irst of all, if large amounts of Saudis are taking up precious spots in prestigious universities then going back home, how is it a net loss if they stop coming over?

You lose $3,500,000,000/year from one country in one industry.

@therajraj

Instead, more Americans would get admitted into top tier schools and rather than lose that intellectual capital when they return back to Saudi Arabia, it will be used in the economy by natives who received those placements.

100% conjecture. More asians might be admitted. You really don’t know. What percentage of Ivy league students are even Muslim? I can’t find it anywhere? I bet it’s less than 5%, though.

@therajraj

Currently, the real unemployment rate is in April 2016 is 22.9%

Let’s just assume I beleive this figure. Do you think cutting off trade with 50 primarily Muslim states will improve unemployment? I do not. We import about 13% of our oil from the Middle East. That’s a lot of trade $'s and jobs.

@therajraj

So who really would you want filling those spots, Saudi rich kids or local americans?

There are 5.5 million jobs that local Americans could fill right now yet they remain unfilled.

[anon50325502]

I don’t see any mention of arms confiscation:

Indiana University Bloomington

Nor here:
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1%20stat%20566.pdf

Nor here:
http://library.uwb.edu/static/USimmigration/1%20stat%20570.pdf

Nor here:
https://sites.google.com/site/kmaclubofamerica/1802-naturalization-act

I don’t even see anything in Adam’s controversial Alien and Sedition Acts.
https://sites.google.com/site/kmaclubofamerica/1802-naturalization-act

“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”

• Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

• William Pitt

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty… The right of self defense is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

• St. George Tucker