VT student arrested for having assault rifle

This is a terrific litmus for the 2A crowd. From what I've seen so far those in the gun rights community tends to fall into two camps, those who support this (closet racist, bigots and morons who pay lip service to constitution and principles of founding fathers but ultimately betray those ideals) and those who don't (real supporters of constitutional rights).

https://www.wthr.com/article/virginia-tech-student-arrested-for-having-assault-rifle

this

article says he was a non-citizen transporting weapons, trying to stockpile ammunition and purchase body armor as well as possibly a police vehicle.

maybe he was trying to protect other citizens from all the tyranny

That is pretty dumb. I am pretty left wing, but people shouldn't be arrested for merely possessing stuff.

Never thought i would agree with anything this guy had to say.

But this is 100% correct.

your about as 'left wing' as my left ball is.

Holy strawman batman, what racist bigots are standing up for the rights of illegal aliens to own assault rifles?

I am pretty sure you have to be very left to think Illegal aliens should be able to guard their weed fields with assault rifles. If this is now a conservative position then conservatives are the new liberals.

it doesnt work man.

I know you think it does, but it doesnt. so what is your real objective here?

If the blind are to be able to purchase firearms for their protection as well as individuals on the terror watch list, then why not illegal aliens?
Why are you standing in the way of small time gun store businesses earning money by selling to everybody?

I love when people call people racist and bigots for disagreeing with a vague ideal.

Tell me more.

"Support this" as in supporting government arresting that individual. It's hypocritical to demand people respect your 2nd amendment rights then turn around and cheer when the government violates gun rights of others. Bill of rights are set of natural rights. It's written to prevent the government from restricting what rights are inherent to everyone, regardless of citizenship. In fact the concept of citizenship isn't even mentioned in the constitution until the 14th amendment.

The only adults I think should be prevented from buying firearms are those in prison, and while I don't have the statistics handy I think roughly half of the people in prison shouldn't be there.

I also don't think there should be such a thing as an illegal alien, so the idea of illegal aliens not being able to buy guns is offensive on many levels. Heck the term alien should be defined as a visiting foreigner who doesn't wish American citizenship. If your feet touch our soil and you are not running from the law you get to be a citizen under the Kitten Nose school of immigration.

Heck, even a lot of people on the run from the law are welcome in my book.

Or in short: Yeah this post is a strawman to =P

@bmanva: Didn't see your post when I typed this up, but it seems like in answers your post as well.

Doesn't matter. There are people out there with the same weapons and even more ammo. Possession of those things are not an indication of criminal intent. It's idiotic to limit a person's natural right based on something like citizenship status. You would never argue that a person's freedom of speech or right to due process be restricted because they are not a US citizen.

Not only that, the bill of rights explicitly prohibits the government from doing so.

Hear flippin' hear!

Right to bear arms (by extent self protection) is a right afford to individual until they proven they cannot be trusted with that right. There's a mistaken impression among some right wingers that those rights are exclusive to American citizens, but they are not.

this argument is made all the time wrt non-citizens in the US. that the rights afforded by constitution only apply to citizens.

You fundamentally misunderstood my OP. You didn't really explain why you consider it a strawman. If you say you are for 2nd amendment right but don't respect the right of all people to bear arms, then you're hypocrite, it's simple as that. The only reason the individual is arrested is because of his status as a non-citizen which under VA law cannot possess "assault weapons". That is a gross violation of the 2nd amendment.

If you argue set of natural rights should be denied simply due to the person being an immigrant because you believe immigrants are somehow more prone to criminal behaviors and what not, then you're absolutely a bigot. Many of them comes from a racist angle.

Edit: Ahh, I see the line you are trying to draw now. Still a strawman, but for different reasons.

Sorry I straight got your profile mixed up with the other person with an angry space marine face.

That's a deeply flawed interpretation of fundamental principles and philosophy of the founding fathers. The constitution don't give people rights, it prevents government from taking them. The only rights restricted by citizenship are voting and running for public office. The first 10 amendments or bill of rights outline individual rights to life, liberty and property which apply to everyone.

lol using strawman as a verb doesn't help explain why what I posted is a strawman argument. At which point did I misrepresent the sides? Also my politics is also "wrong on strawmen"? lolwut

If anything it seems you're the one guilty of a strawman argument. Just because someone support 2nd amendment doesn't mean they are right winged or subscribe to all right wing ideology. Also you misrepresented someone who would advocate gun right as a gun lover or wanting everyone to have guns. None of those were actually implied in my post.

Why don't you elaborate your opinion on the matter? Because you're coming off more as a contrarian then someone with a concrete set of beliefs. Also doesn't help your seemly obsession the strawman angle.

This gives the founders a touch too much credit. The Bill of Rights limits the power of the federal government. It however doesn't actually protect the rights in question, or extend them to anyone.

If it did, there never would have been and conversation about State's rights.

*edit* And yeah see the above edit. You got blended, sorry. If you wish to know why your OP is a strawman: You are saying the only possible reasoning for opposing your position is racism, and then attributing that negative quality to the opposition in order to discredit them before they even get a chance to raise an argument.

Thought you were attacking from the other direction, and I blended you with someone else so perfectly willing to concede the error. Your OP however is still a strawman.

But your link said he didn't legally own the gun. If he had a license for it I could see why you would think that this is unconstitutional, but stockpiling weapons that you are not approved legally to have should be another matter right?

EDIT. Or are you upset that we (or at least some states, can't speak for all) that we don't allow non-citizens to own guns?

The law which treats citizen and noncitizen differently regarding 2nd amendment rights (or really any rights mentioned in the bill of rights) is unconstitutional. Also AFAIK, he can actually own guns, but VA has statute prohibiting non-citizens from owning what they classify as "assault weapon". There's couple of issues in play here, but ultimately, constitution (bor in particular) prevents government from making any law that would limit any individuals natural rights (e.g. freedom of speech, right to due process, self defense etc).

yes I understand the subject and the concern of military taking over citizenry which is why a few guns will help against tanks and jets BUT...all that aside

I think buying 5000 rounds of ammunition is a problem and its something that should not be happening

lol I'm sorry have you actually read the constitution and bill of rights? It absolutely protects those natural rights. It does so by limiting the power of ANY government. Considering Locke's influence among authors of those documents, and evident by the language of other documents (declaration of independence) that the commonly cited "people" refers to any US person. The whole concept of citizenship came very much later.

Seriously go back and read the constitution, article six explicitly establish the constitution as supreme law of the land, meaning no state or local law can supersede it.

"You are saying the only possible reasoning for opposing your position is racism" Uh no I didn't, did you missed the part where I stated: "From what I've seen so far". Those are observations of limited sample size not the entire population.

Illegal drugs shouldnt be illegal in the first place. Go ahead, look up the reason for most of these drugs and why they were illegal to begin with.

As for the other one... I am not going to discuss it due to the ToU on this site. But in some cases there, I do agree that it should be illegal when said possession came through the violation of rights and the well being of other people. But that is probably one, of the few exceptions to that rule.

Someone wont automatically get hurt or have their life put in jeopardy because bob owns a shotgun.

why should illegal drugs be illegal? I dont mean to divert the conversation but I find that a very odd assertion for one to make.

what is or is not illegal is a decision that law makers make based on a variety of factors and they dont get everything right

lol...

yeah so we just tell France that they violated our constitution?

Well, glad you are not denying the strawman anymore.

That said, how do you think Dixie enslaved folks if the Bill of Rights protected everyone? It may use some flowery rhetoric, but that flowery rhetoric was not legally enforceable over the right of the state to infringe upon such things.

*facepalm* did you happen to miss the part where I stated that constitution is intended for the US government? Unless France is part of US government, no they didn't violate our constitution.

the constitution of the united states can not 'limit the power' of any country. well that is not true, at least not within our borders

Again with the strawman. You're doing that ironically right? Using "strawman" as a strawman argument?

Never said it was perfect. But that's ignoring the fact that fundamentally bill of rights did apply to everyone and that discrimination of the time (be it back in had to find ways around the constitution. That's where the whole "[colored folks/immigrants] are not real individuals therefore not entitled to natural rights of men" argument comes in.

maybe in theory.

your right exists only insofar as you and others are willing to ( and have the power to ) defend it. any entity with enough power (government included) could take away a right the constitution claims as inalienable.

The context of any government is referring to government at any level (state, local or tribal) in the US, since kitty stated that "BOR limits the power of the federal government", which is wrong.

ah...ok my bad sorry for interjecting not fully on top of it

When did I say you claimed it was perfect?

I am saying the position of the founding fathers is antithetical to your claims. The Bill of Rights stopped Georgia from lobbying the federal government in an effort to force New York to legalize slavery. It had absolutely no problem with Georgia lobbying the representatives of New York directly.

Color has nothing to do with it either. You are repeating American Fables, not American History. New York would have been perfectly within it's rights to enslave whites as a protest so southern slavery. All this changed with the Fourteenth Amendment

All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That exists for a reason. You might also want to notice the word Citizen. The Fourteenth Amendment is a step in the right direction, but even then it is only a half measure. I agree with the political position you are taking, but The Constitution isn't there yet. We would need to amend it again to apply to non-citizens.

basically the idea is this.

Imagine its a million year ago (or however long it was), we are nomadic tribes, you are born. at the point of your biological birth you biology does not demand rights be given to you and nobody has your rights of which they can give you.

its only what is taken away from you. and understand it might be for good reasons. but at birth in a national bilogical state, you have the 'right' to do anything you are able to.

Living in a modern world we tend to get disconnected from the fundementals of things like that

Barring a few extreme cases (where the ownership infringes on others), we shouldnt ban stuff because we don't like them. It is called freedom.

I don't like guns, I dont want guns. But I would defend others rights to own them.

My core political belief is that anything should be allowed as long as it doesnt infringe on others or society as a whole or puts others at risk... that includes the right to own firearms or drugs.

I'm not interested in discussing any of them. Just pointing out your statement was absurd.

You don't think self defense is a natural right? Do you think it's someone else's responsibility to protect you or your family?

Of course. That's why military personnel are swore to uphold to constitution and all the processes and law are in place to ensure it's the supreme rule of the land.

What are you trying to debate about again?

Private ownership of knives infringes on the populations right to safety from knives.

Edit: Or a better one. Private ownership of cars infringes on the populations right to safety from cars. Cars kill a lot more people than guns do.

See how absurd your statement is?