Illegals have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment

[Indirect Fire]

I have done much for the Pilipino people...If you include paying the whores.

Subic Bay at age 17.....awe man


lumpia and the 0.25 cent San Miguel too !

 

[Jambo]

No mix-up. I just forgot to put yourself in quotes because you guys were making the exact same argument, but you couldn't keep your borders straight - or to be exact where you draw the lines on who gets what 2A rights, where Constitutional rights extend, etc. You both say it applies to everyone, but then it stops at the border or it doesn't stop at the border. I wanted to know where one draws the line in this absurdity...

And good to know someone finally was able to admit this judge had the wisdom THAT NO ONE ELSE, at least in an official capacity, has had in the last 239 years of the history of this country. I appreciate you solidifying the ridiculousness of your position.

But either way it seems we reached agreement. Deport every single illegal in this country, and then you can give them all the rights you'd like. That is once you guys figure out where to draw the line with your identical positions.

OK, I guess I'm done here. You like to insult people and pop in little emoticons, but apparently don't read well. In addition, you seem to group people with differences in their views together. You asked for a quote from the founding fathers supporting my position, so I give you three quotes that say the militia, mentioned in the Second Amendment, is EVERY male. You still say that my position is ridiculous, as I guess they weren't "official" enough for you.

It seems that you have fallen prey to the liberal idea that the government grants your rights through the laws written by politicians. I disagree, believing that every human has certain inalienable rights granted by our Creator. Anyone who infringes upon those rights is an oppressor, regardless of whatever law the State has passed justifying it, and wherever they live.

But, since you firmly disagree, believing "that America is a nation of law", laws that your betters write for you, I will waste no more time. We can now go our separate ways, one believing in freedom given by God, the other believing in the freedom granted by his benevolent overlords. As Samuel Adams said, "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget you were our countryman."

 

[batoncolle]

OK, I guess I'm done here. You like to insult people and pop in little emoticons, but apparently don't read well. In addition, you seem to group people with differences in their views together. You asked for a quote from the founding fathers supporting my position, so I give you three quotes that say the militia, mentioned in the Second Amendment, is EVERY male. You still say that my position is ridiculous, as I guess they weren't "official" enough for you.

It seems that you have fallen prey to the liberal idea that the government grants your rights through the laws written by politicians. I disagree, believing that every human has certain inalienable rights granted by our Creator. Anyone who infringes upon those rights is an oppressor, regardless of whatever law the State has passed justifying it, and wherever they live.

But, since you firmly disagree, believing "that America is a nation of law", laws that your betters write for you, I will waste no more time. We can now go our separate ways, one believing in freedom given by God, the other believing in the freedom granted by his benevolent overlords. As Samuel Adams said, "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you, and may posterity forget you were our countryman."

I'm not insulting you. I'm insulting your position because you've been unable to explain it other than your theories. And your position was exactly the same as the other guy, except the "lines" were just different. I wanted clarification.

Quotes from the founders, just like 2A, are constantly misinterpreted or distorted - just as you have done. I asked for a direct quote from ANYONE that supports the position that because the government abdicated their responsibility on enforcing laws that illegals are suddenly granted all these rights. And then you are able to conclude that this judge has suddenly come up with a brand new interpretation of the law that no one else as ever come up with in 239 years so yeah sorry, but that is an absurd position.

As I said we both "apparently" believe that illegals should not be here. So fine. Deport them, and then grant them all the rights you'd like.

And I do believe that rights are God given, but this is a legal debate thread. If you'd like to keep bringing God into the equation, then scroll down to the Religious Debate forum, start a thread, and I'll be happy to show you where you're wrong there as well. (I apologize in advance if the emoticon offends you)

 

[GeauxLSU]

I admit to scanning a few responses but I don't see where anyone has talked about the actual reason for the 2A. "Right to self defense"? I don't think so.
If you consider the actual reasons for it's existence is, do we REALLY think foreign invaders have a Constitutional right to take up arms against an oppressive U.S. government?

 

[Jambo]

I admit to scanning a few responses but I don't see where anyone has talked about the actual reason for the 2A. "Right to self defense"? I don't think so.
If you consider the actual reasons for it's existence is, do we REALLY think foreign invaders have a Constitutional right to take up arms against an oppressive U.S. government?

Logic similar to this got us the New York gun prohibition laws. Their thought was "Do we REALLY think all these Irish immigrants have the right to bear arms?" Similar thinking also got us the now dead (thankfully) "public gathering" clause in Georgia's carry laws. They thought "Do we REALLY think all these negroes should be able to carry guns?"

This is the proverbial slippery slope. Get enough people on your side and you can deny any rights to anyone.

I don't believe the 2A grants us anything. It only enumerates our rights as humans; therefore, all humans have the right of self preservation, including against a tyrannical government. Keeping and bearing arms is one thing, taking up arms is another. This is the reason the 2nd Amendment was crafted as it was; it protects your right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily your right to use them in a crime or commit treason. Although as far as treason goes, remember that all of our Founding Fathers committed treason.

But having it on your person while being here illegally does not constitute using it in a crime, only having it while committing a crime. He did commit the crime, so he should still be deported. I just don't think he should be charged for any other violation of some firearm "law".

Not to mention that if we do charge him with violating some firearm law then we have to imprison and take care of him until the time is up, and then deport him. How does that make sense?

 

[coach482]

Probably gets issued to them upon arrival.

 

[GeauxLSU]

Logic similar to this got us the New York gun prohibition laws. Their thought was "Do we REALLY think all these Irish immigrants have the right to bear arms?" Similar thinking also got us the now dead (thankfully) "public gathering" clause in Georgia's carry laws. They thought "Do we REALLY think all these negroes should be able to carry guns?"

This is the proverbial slippery slope. Get enough people on your side and you can deny any rights to anyone.

I don't believe the 2A grants us anything. It only enumerates our rights as humans; therefore, all humans have the right of self preservation, including against a tyrannical government. Keeping and bearing arms is one thing, taking up arms is another. This is the reason the 2nd Amendment was crafted as it was; it protects your right to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily your right to use them in a crime or commit treason. Although as far as treason goes, remember that all of our Founding Fathers committed treason.

But having it on your person while being here illegally does not constitute using it in a crime, only having it while committing a crime. He did commit the crime, so he should still be deported. I just don't think he should be charged for any other violation of some firearm "law".

Not to mention that if we do charge him with violating some firearm law then we have to imprison and take care of him until the time is up, and then deport him. How does that make sense?

It's not a slippery slope at all. It's sole purpose is about protection from a tyrannical government. Do you deny that?

 

[Jambo]

It's not a slippery slope at all. It's sole purpose is about protection from a tyrannical government. Do you deny that?

I do. Although it is clear the main focus of the 2nd Amendment was to enumerate (not grant) the right of the people to keep and bear arms against tyrannical government or invasion, I doubt the Founders would say "arms for personal protection are not OK". Especially since at least one of the Founders was later shot and killed in a duel with another one of the Founders.

This is a little like the argument sometimes used by the Left, who claim the militia is the National Guard (although militia groups existed long before the National Guard, or even the nation existed). They claim that the right to keep and bear arms is a group right, not a personal right. Their argument is "well, what can you with your hand gun do against the entire U.S. Army?" They then say the 2nd Amendment only applies to States and the National Guard, the only force that could possibly stand against a tyrant who controls the Army.

The Founders disagreed, and wrote many times that the militia consists of every male over the age of 17. Militias were used on April 19th, 1775, to beat back the most powerful army on Earth. These militias were made up of, and commanded by, normal citizens. Citizens who recognized that they could do more by banding together, although many acted alone.

I say the right to arms is a human right, and applies to every person. Therefore arms are used to protect your rights; Life, Liberty, and Property, from all who wish to take them. Arms are used in protection against the individual mugger and the tyrant hundreds of miles away. It makes no difference.

Please remember that the Bill of Rights does NOT grant your rights. It only enumerates the rights, and protects those rights from incursion by the government. People were worried the new central government created by the Constitution was going to run over them and the states. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the Federal government, and ease those fears, not grant us any rights. The rights are ours already.

 

[GeauxLSU]

I'm very well aware of their purpose and I'm very well aware the founders would have in no way wanted to protect the rights of illegal invaders to possess arms. The 2A has as much to do with protecting yourself from an armed mugging as it does with hunting.

 

[batoncolle]

I do. Although it is clear the main focus of the 2nd Amendment was to enumerate (not grant) the right of the people to keep and bear arms against tyrannical government or invasion, I doubt the Founders would say "arms for personal protection are not OK". Especially since at least one of the Founders was later shot and killed in a duel with another one of the Founders.

This is a little like the argument sometimes used by the Left, who claim the militia is the National Guard (although militia groups existed long before the National Guard, or even the nation existed). They claim that the right to keep and bear arms is a group right, not a personal right. Their argument is "well, what can you with your hand gun do against the entire U.S. Army?" They then say the 2nd Amendment only applies to States and the National Guard, the only force that could possibly stand against a tyrant who controls the Army.

The Founders disagreed, and wrote many times that the militia consists of every male over the age of 17. Militias were used on April 19th, 1775, to beat back the most powerful army on Earth. These militias were made up of, and commanded by, normal citizens. Citizens who recognized that they could do more by banding together, although many acted alone.

I say the right to arms is a human right, and applies to every person. Therefore arms are used to protect your rights; Life, Liberty, and Property, from all who wish to take them. Arms are used in protection against the individual mugger and the tyrant hundreds of miles away. It makes no difference.

Please remember that the Bill of Rights does NOT grant your rights. It only enumerates the rights, and protects those rights from incursion by the government. People were worried the new central government created by the Constitution was going to run over them and the states. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to restrict the Federal government, and ease those fears, not grant us any rights. The rights are ours already.

So is 2A the ONLY right you feel applies to everyone, or do you draw the line at other rights? Do you understand we have the right to travel freely not only within this country but to leave and return.