-
ODT Gun Show & Swap Meet - May 4, 2024! - Click here for info
Illegals have the right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment
- Thread starter CarolinaKid
- Start date
So are you saying the 2nd Amendment GRANTS you the right to ONLY own weapons that would be used in war? No self defense or hunting weapons allowed?
And since your rights come from a document written by men, that a group of politicians could write another document and take them all away? And since it's a law, you'd be OK with that?
I believe that the 2nd Amendment ENUMERATES your human right to be armed, no matter what the cause. I don't believe it ONLY applies to posessing the means to overthrow a tyrannical government. I think it applies to ALL arms, military, hunting, self defense, target, wall hangers, etc.
I also believe Thomas Jefferson got it right when he said "All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights..." I.E., that my rights do not come from a piece of parchment. And, note that Jefferson said "all men".
Im confused
Are you saying foreign fraudsters have a legitimate claim to THE AMERICAN constitution just because they are human? When they decided to breach our nations borders and purposefully misrepresent themselves (or hide) for their own interests? They have not fought or paid for this country, nor were they invited
I cant believe this is even a debate. If you broke the laws to get and remain here you are not welcome!
Naw, i think PH is rounding up more clients ouside the home depot
i always wondered why his business card was.......green
Never mind you don't have to answer my question because you just answered it here.
So you feel our Constitutional rights apply to all men, but yet you have stated many times in this thread that these people should be deported, and in fact you used the term "invaded this country". So you feel they have a right to 2A and all rights, but yet they don't have the right to travel here into our country. That position is about as hypocritical as you can get, but I guess you get to draw the line on which rights apply and don't apply to all men.
No definitely not PH because as I just pointed out to this guy, at least PH wasn't hypocritical and was consistent in his beliefs. He felt immigrants had a right to come and go into the US.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2013
- Messages
- 65,923
- Reaction score
- 73,997
1) No.
2) You're being ridiculous.
3) I never said that, but you know that.
4) No it doesn't. It has a very specific reason and reasoning.
5) You can believe whatever you'd like. The facts don't support, at all, your desires.
6) I agree, it doesn't rule out ANY arms since they can all be used to fend off a tyrannical government.
7) Me too.
8) So I guess the 2A doesn't apply to women then.
Last edited:
Certain rights are inalienable, and apply to all men, such as the right to defend oneself.
If you try to steal my food you are taking my property, property that I gave part of my life (my time) to obtain. I therefore have the right to defend my property, which is in essence an extension of my life. Your rights end where mine begin.
I believe that anyone should be able to do anything they would like, as long as it doesn't hurt me or someone else. No one is harmed by anyone who only bears arms.
I believe the illegal alien in question should have been deported. When he is in this country he uses services that are supplied by taxpayers without paying in himself, thereby stealing from the taxpayers. This is sufficient to kick him out. Why add anything else to it?
I do not believe he, or anyone else, should be charged with a 'crime' for the mere possession of a firearm, or in this case, a single bullet. I certainly do NOT believe that he should be charged, convicted, and then incarcerated, for this "crime"....and then deported after he's served his sentence. That seems pretty wasteful to me.
If he commits any other non-victimless crime while here he should be treated the same as anyone else and punished for it. But don't keep him here, locked up, for a victimless crime as stupid as "in possession of a 22LR round while in the country illegally".
You do if they can't or won't do anything about it...
Look, I don't want to insult you, I hope you didn't take my responses to mean that. With that in mind, here's my response to the response:
1) Good, we're on the same page on this.
2) If I remember correctly, one of the reasons the 1933 law regulating SBRs and silencers was upheld was because the court ruled that the 2nd Amendment only applied to weapons of war, and they did not consider a short barreled shotgun a weapon of war (which was, in itself wrong). So my opinion that the 2nd Amendment restricts the government from restricting ANY firearm, used for ANY purpose, is in some part because of this ruling. I agree that the 2nd Amendment was primarily written to prevent the government from removing our means of overthrowing it; however, I think it is more broad than that, and is also capable of protecting our right to hunt, target practice, and self defense. It seems that we are getting to the same place through different roads: No firearm should be restricted. I'm OK with that if you are.
3) You never directly said that, you are correct. But people frequently use the phrase "my 2nd Amendment rights", which I believe is wrong on a subtle level. We have to be careful to remember that our rights are not GRANTED by the Constitution, and correct anyone that says so. I apologize for assuming you feel that way. I see it so often that sometimes I jump to that conclusion.
4) and 5) Already covered.
6) and 7) yep.
8) It only applies to men when my wife and I are having a bad fight, although she can do some damage with a toaster oven. On a serious note, the Declaration of Independence says that all people have certain inalienable rights. It does not stipulate that only citizens have the right to a means of self defense, or the means to overthrow the government. It is our job, as armed patriots, to prevent ANYONE from overthrowing the government. Unless it needs overthrowing, of course.
