Citizenship rights after a year?

2»

Replies

  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,724 Senior Member
    You near Wisstah?
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,714 Senior Member
    Buffco wrote: »
    Amazing how ardent we are about defending our second amendment rights, yet how quick we are to deny rights to other persons.

    All it takes is an unpopular group to get us all on board. Those of you who would take away rights, remember who it is you're granting this power to:

    The same damn government that we're all convinced is coming for our guns!!!

    Is my fellow citizen this stupid, this blind? Forbid it, Almighty God.


    And this is the difference between Libertarians and Republicans. We can't cherry pick the BOR just because we are pissed.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,046 Senior Member
    Geez Cali...don't go laying this on Republicans.....rather lay it on those folks who don't have a clear understanding of the Constitution...and there are plenty of those, Republicans, Democrats AND Libertarians....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,650 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    And this is the difference between Libertarians and Republicans. We can't cherry pick the BOR just because we are pissed.

    And it is also the reason Libertarians and Republicans are always at each others throats. Libertarians differ from genuine libertarians in that Libertarians are hardcore radicals that are completely unrealistic in their belief that 300 million people can ever agree on what the Constitution and BOR actually mean. They are "my way or the highway" types, just as surely as the most radical members of the fundamentalist religions are, when interpreting whichever translation of the Bible they have chosen to be "the word of God."

    Republicans (as opposed to conservatives), on the other hand, are mealy-mouthed moderates who will bend over and grab their ankles for anybody who is pretending to compromise, on any issue that might help them manage the decline of the Republic.

    If there is ever to be any hope for saving the Constitution, without another bloody revolution, it will be the result of a union between libertarians and conservatives, outside of party platforms and current trends. In this case, conservatives would not deny this guy his rights, but they would use every legal trick in the book to make sure he did not use the protections provided by the Constitution to do harm to the nation it was written to protect. The Constitution means what it means, and reasonable people can come to an agreement on what that is, without nitpicking the language used on each individual passage within it. The one thing it does not mean is that our enemies can use the little individual vagaries within it to harm the Republic it was written to protect.

    Laws are meant to provide a framework for people to live their lives the way they want to, with a minimum amount of conflict with their neighbors - not as another tool to beat each other over the head with. The 'letter of the law' will have as many different interpretations as there are ideologies that want to benefit from them to sell their ideas. It takes reasonable and principled people to administer the intent of the Constitution and BOR in a way that will preserve the republic - not radical constructionists with an ax of their own to grind.
  • mythaeusmythaeus Senior Member Posts: 831 Senior Member
    I'm a naturalized citizen. Go ahead and tell me that you're more "American" than me because you happen to be born here; and, that because I'm ACCUSED of having committed some crime, all of the sudden my rights don't matter. Imagine the same if I were a member of a local militia that the government decided to go after with "overwhelming" evident of "anti-government" and the first thing they would do is deny me of my rights because I was naturalized "last year". If you're not familiar with the Hutaree Militia case, I suggest you read up on that.

    Unless it's in the Constitution that I can't do something, like one day run for POTUS, I'm as much a citizen as any one else and should be protected all the same under ALL circumstances in which a natural born American is protected. Due process as dictated by the Constitution is absolutely necessary if you are going to have a true, consistent, and fair justice system. I'm not much for conspiracy theory, but all I personally have right now on this DB is evident from the media. I've seen nothing in person nor has a jury of his peer, except for what the officials divulged and the media mucked it. If you want a future where the crime you are accused of having committed would only have evident presented by the media fed piecemeal by the government, convicted by the public, and executed by the police, I want to see YOU stripped of your US citizenship regardless of how you became one.

    That said, I can see a Constitution-aligned process where an American accused of terrorism, regardless of how he became a citizen, goes through a civilian trial as an American that he is, convicted, then have him be treated in whatever way necessary to obtain further information since a convict no longer has all the same rights afforded to him by the Constitution.

    Al
    "In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves." - Siddhartha Gautama
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,714 Senior Member
    Jayhawker wrote: »
    Geez Cali...don't go laying this on Republicans.....rather lay it on those folks who don't have a clear understanding of the Constitution...and there are plenty of those, Republicans, Democrats AND Libertarians....


    As Bisley so eloquently pointed out, there is a vast difference between conservatives and Republicans. I said Republicans; not conservatives.

    I was listening to FOX news in the car, and I could not believe what is spewing out of the talking head's mouths. Suspended citizenship, torture, Gitmo, execution, etc. I am seeing the exact same bile HERE from some of the members. Our process is flawed, but it is still a process that we must adhere to. We can't circumvent the system because of the nature of the crime, especially when in an emotional state. Democrats do the same thing after a mass shooting.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,714 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    And it is also the reason Libertarians and Republicans are always at each others throats. Libertarians differ from genuine libertarians in that Libertarians are hardcore radicals that are completely unrealistic in their belief that 300 million people can ever agree on what the Constitution and BOR actually mean.

    If always erring on the side of Liberty makes me a "hardcore radical" then I accept the moniker with a smile.

    The real reason Libertarians and conservatives are at each other's throats is simply because converatives (republicans) have a basic need to control other people's lives. Freedom is something that only applies to what they agree with. They will beg for a police state to enforce their views without ever considering the consequences.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,407 Senior Member
    A couple of days ago I was subpoenaed as a possible witness in a criminal case, and got to see a sleazeball weasel of a defense attorney at work. He pulled every sneaky trick in the book to discredit the prosecution witnesses, and managed to get his equally sleazy client acquitted. I was not called to testify, so I just wasted the better part of a day. Watching that scumbag at work made me want to declare open season on lawyers in general, which would have been about as wrong as using an emotional excuse to deny a citizen his rights. Because there are people who exploit the loopholes in the system doesn't necessarily make the system wrong- - - - -just the people who deliberately subvert the intent of the law or the constitution. While we're busy stringing up all the lawyers and terror suspects, let's shoot all the welfare cheats too! (Insert "sarcasm" emoticon here!)
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,714 Senior Member
    mythaeus wrote: »
    I'm a naturalized citizen. Go ahead and tell me that you're more "American" than me because you happen to be born here; and, that because I'm ACCUSED of having committed some crime, all of the sudden my rights don't matter. Imagine the same if I were a member of a local militia that the government decided to go after with "overwhelming" evident of "anti-government" and the first thing they would do is deny me of my rights because I was naturalized "last year". If you're not familiar with the Hutaree Militia case, I suggest you read up on that.

    Unless it's in the Constitution that I can't do something, like one day run for POTUS, I'm as much a citizen as any one else and should be protected all the same under ALL circumstances in which a natural born American is protected. Due process as dictated by the Constitution is absolutely necessary if you are going to have a true, consistent, and fair justice system. I'm not much for conspiracy theory, but all I personally have right now on this DB is evident from the media. I've seen nothing in person nor has a jury of his peer, except for what the officials divulged and the media mucked it. If you want a future where the crime you are accused of having committed would only have evident presented by the media fed piecemeal by the government, convicted by the public, and executed by the police, I want to see YOU stripped of your US citizenship regardless of how you became one.

    That said, I can see a Constitution-aligned process where an American accused of terrorism, regardless of how he became a citizen, goes through a civilian trial as an American that he is, convicted, then have him be treated in whatever way necessary to obtain further information since a convict no longer has all the same rights afforded to him by the Constitution.

    Al

    Well said. :agree:
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • GuardrailGuardrail New Member Posts: 26 New Member
    Teach wrote: »
    While we're busy stringing up all the lawyers and terror suspects, let's shoot all the welfare cheats too! (Insert "sarcasm" emoticon here!)
    Jerry

    Everyone hates lawyers until they need one, then they want the best, slimiest one they can afford. :D

    Guardrail
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,407 Senior Member
    Q: What's the difference in a lawyer and a catfish?

    A: One is a slimy, scum-sucking bottom-feeder- - - - - -the other one is a fish!
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • RimfireRimfire Senior Member Posts: 807 Senior Member
    Al said it much better than I.

    Whether you are citizen by birth or by choice, you are a citizen and should have your day in court.

    I don't trust the media to tell us 100% truth about anything (unless it benefits them).
    G&A Forum Member since: October 2000; Life Member: GOA, IWLA, NRA, & Escapees.
  • Lynx0849Lynx0849 New Member Posts: 17 New Member
    bullsi1911 wrote: »
    You near Wisstah?

    A little north and east of it. Just inside I495.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,046 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    As Bisley so eloquently pointed out, there is a vast difference between conservatives and Republicans. I said Republicans; not conservatives.

    I was listening to FOX news in the car, and I could not believe what is spewing out of the talking head's mouths. Suspended citizenship, torture, Gitmo, execution, etc. I am seeing the exact same bile HERE from some of the members. Our process is flawed, but it is still a process that we must adhere to. We can't circumvent the system because of the nature of the crime, especially when in an emotional state. Democrats do the same thing after a mass shooting.

    This is the product of one generation that slept through Government class and another that didn't have Government taught at all....
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • agewonagewon Senior Member Posts: 655 Senior Member
    The bottom line to me, is that this DB was wanted for a Terrorist attack on our soil, not robbing a bank, and not murder. His intent (providing he is guilty) was to kill or maim as many people as possible. Now, who's to say he was acting only with his brother? Everyone should have their day in court to be judged by their peers, but I think they jumped the gun because now they're saying his mother was on the terrorist database with his brother. Why? Well the guy that could have told us everything is now afforded the same rights as the guy that got a DWI, or shoplifted.
    Ill admit, I wasn't very interested in politics nor my rights growing up because I never thought much about them. They were always there and I was always taught that we were "protected" from people like this. But how do I explain this to my two kids, that things like this can happen anywhere, and the media isn't always unbiased? They're still young so I try an shield them as much as I can (Newtown especially).
    I know it's a slippery slope, and i just cant waive a wand to make it right, but a terrorist with this much evidence against him should be squeezed of all his juice before his day in court.
  • JayhawkerJayhawker Moderator Posts: 15,046 Senior Member
    So what do you think of the McVeigh case and how it was handled?
    Sharps Model 1874 - "The rifle that made the west safe for Winchester"
  • KSU FirefighterKSU Firefighter Senior Member Posts: 3,246 Senior Member
    Your kids, your rules, I try not to hide how the world can be from mine. Unfortunately there are bad people in the world. If I could wave my hands and make all the people go away, I would. If I could guarantee that no innocent person would ever get accused of a crime, and only evil-doers would get arrested then I have no problem with hooking them up to the wall socket and finding out everything they know. Since neither of these are possible, I will have to rely on the system in place in our nation, where we recognize the inalienable rights of all, no matter how bad they are. I don't know how old your kids are, but I try to explain this kind of stuff to mine as best as I can. Put it in terms they understand, and prepare them for what they are going to face. My oldest has been tormented at times all through middle school. She has had to toughen up considerably from 5th grade on. It is my job to teach them how to handle the school bully on up to being ready to face the evil that is out there in our world.
    The fire service needs a "culture of extinguishment not safety" Ray McCormack FDNY
  • mythaeusmythaeus Senior Member Posts: 831 Senior Member
    agewon wrote: »
    The bottom line to me, is that this DB was wanted for a Terrorist attack on our soil, not robbing a bank, and not murder. His intent (providing he is guilty) was to kill or maim as many people as possible. Now, who's to say he was acting only with his brother? Everyone should have their day in court to be judged by their peers, but I think they jumped the gun because now they're saying his mother was on the terrorist database with his brother. Why? Well the guy that could have told us everything is now afforded the same rights as the guy that got a DWI, or shoplifted.
    Ill admit, I wasn't very interested in politics nor my rights growing up because I never thought much about them. They were always there and I was always taught that we were "protected" from people like this. But how do I explain this to my two kids, that things like this can happen anywhere, and the media isn't always unbiased? They're still young so I try an shield them as much as I can (Newtown especially).
    I know it's a slippery slope, and i just cant waive a wand to make it right, but a terrorist with this much evidence against him should be squeezed of all his juice before his day in court.

    The way I look at it when it comes to kids is that God forbid if one day my kid would be accused of such heinous crime and there is "this much evident" against him, I would want him to have his day in court with all the due process afforded to him by the Constitution prior, during, and after the trial. Ask yourself if you want that for your kids, too, or are you satisfied the way you are now with media evident, government accusations, and public opinion based on those two "trustworthy" sources of information?

    Al
    "In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves." - Siddhartha Gautama
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,407 Senior Member
    Ask Richard Jewell, and the Elvis impersonator they had to release last week for lack of evidence, just how reliable government press releases are in lieu of real facts! The feds couldn't even run Mustang Ranch at a profit after they seized it for back taxes- - - - -and if they can't be a success at selling sex and booze, who thinks they're going to be any good at something as important as protecting us from terrorists?
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • mythaeusmythaeus Senior Member Posts: 831 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Ask Richard Jewell, and the Elvis impersonator they had to release last week for lack of evidence, just how reliable government press releases are in lieu of real facts! The feds couldn't even run Mustang Ranch at a profit after they seized it for back taxes- - - - -and if they can't be a success at selling sex and booze, who thinks they're going to be any good at something as important as protecting us from terrorists?
    Jerry

    Yup.

    And this one is even closer to home, especially for gun owners like us: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hutaree. I'm not saying I support what the Hutaree do/did/are doing because the only information I had was accusations by the government and what I "learned" from the media. After all the hoopla of "overwhelming evident" the only 2 convictions were on 2 people in the group of weapons charges. How many times have you heard of "domestic terrorists" and "militia" in the same sentence in the media and officials the past several years?

    Al
    "In a controversy, the instant we feel anger we have already ceased striving for the truth and have begun striving for ourselves." - Siddhartha Gautama
  • bullsi1911bullsi1911 Moderator Posts: 9,724 Senior Member
    Lynx0849 wrote: »
    A little north and east of it. Just inside I495.

    Mass used to be my territory at work, and I spent more time than I want to admit driving the MassPike, sitting in Logan Intl, and for some reason, being at tradeshows in Sturbridge. Anyway, 'Wistah' is a cool little area, and Boston is fun to visit.

    Back to the thread- mythaeus is right.
    To make something simple is a thousand times more difficult than to make something complex.
    -Mikhail Kalashnikov
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,650 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    The real reason Libertarians and conservatives are at each other's throats is simply because converatives (republicans) have a basic need to control other people's lives. Freedom is something that only applies to what they agree with. They will beg for a police state to enforce their views without ever considering the consequences.

    Listen to what you are saying - you use 'conservative' and 'Republican' interchangeably, when challenged, just as surely as any screeching liberal does, who has been taught since birth that all conservatives are white supremacists and Bible-thumpers who want to dominate the people who don't measure up to their standards.

    There are tens of millions of people out there who simply want to live their lives the way they want with as little government interference as possible. Some call themselves libertarians because the label of conservative has been tainted by the left with their decades long efforts to redefine our language. Others are almost completely apolitical and call themselves conservatives because they have no ideological preferences whatever. They still believe in the original principals that established this country, and still use the correct definition of 'conservative' to describe the way they live their lives. They don't care what political strategists are demonizing on any given day, because they can't believe that anyone would hear that and apply it to them. They just happen to believe in some of the very legitimate and well-established principles that were arrived at by trial and error, centuries ago, and have been proven to be sound principles for society as a whole. They are skeptical about all the half-baked utopian plans that wild-eyed ideologues dream up continuously and become activists for, before they have even passed the first tests of being logical or workable. They know that ideas are not facts and that they always spawn unexpected consequences that are more often bad than good. They are 'conservative' in their approach to embracing untested plans and want to see proof before risking resources and writing new laws. They aren't opposed to change - they are just careful about 'betting the ranch' on it without sound evidence.

    The issues that separate the majority of genuine libertarians and genuine conservatives are not the issues that are the most critical to preserving the republic. They are important, but they shouldn't be used to blow up any type of coalition that might stop this slide into economic and social oblivion that the left is leading us to. I have mostly given up my opposition to their isolationist ideas, legalizing drugs, and a few other things because none of those things will matter if we continue to let the left dismantle the Constitution and destroy the economy. Those two things are imminent, and the result will be the kind of manufactured chaos that dictatorships arise from. Once it goes that far, we only have a choice between subjugation or revolution.
  • North ForestNorth Forest Member Posts: 311 Member
    I really enjoy the way you write, bisley. I have to agree with all the above ^^. Its refreshing to read viewpoints that are both intelligent and balanced.
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,714 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    The issues that separate the majority of genuine libertarians and genuine conservatives are not the issues that are the most critical to preserving the republic. They are important, but they shouldn't be used to blow up any type of coalition that might stop this slide into economic and social oblivion that the left is leading us to. I have mostly given up my opposition to their isolationist ideas, legalizing drugs, and a few other things because none of those things will matter if we continue to let the left dismantle the Constitution and destroy the economy. Those two things are imminent, and the result will be the kind of manufactured chaos that dictatorships arise from. Once it goes that far, we only have a choice between subjugation or revolution.


    You complain about the conservative label being smeared by the left, then you take a breath and smear the Libertarian label. And then you expect us to vote for your god awful candidates, or be accused of "giving elections to the left." Wake up Bisley, your candidates are also leftist.

    We have some common goals, but there is a vast divide that we will likely never bridge. Your concern is preserving the country at any cost. My concern is preserving individual liberty. Of course the two goals can be accomplished if we stick with the Constitution and BOR, instead of "use every legal trick in the book to make sure he did not use the protections provided by the Constitution on to do harm to the nation it was written to protect." The BOR wasn't written to protect this Nation. The BOR was added to protect the people from the nation.

    This is lost on liberals and conservatives.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,650 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    Your concern is preserving the country at any cost. My concern is preserving individual liberty. Of course the two goals can be accomplished if we stick with the Constitution and BOR, instead of "use every legal trick in the book to make sure he did not use the protections provided by the Constitution on to do harm to the nation it was written to protect." The BOR wasn't written to protect this Nation. The BOR was added to protect the people from the nation.

    This is lost on liberals and conservatives.

    I'll skip all your mischaracterizations of conservatives, since I've already said my piece on that and you don't buy it. So, I'll simply say that anybody who thinks they can preserve individual liberty without first reforming the government is not going to accomplish either.
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.