BigGreen2000
NES Member
Victor Davis Hanson has a great lecture on YouTube about the difference between being a Citizen vs a Resident, and how the benefits of being a Citizen have been eroded in the last few decades. . .
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
You're going down another rabbit hole.Wrong. We say that all the time when a Liberal wants to have their 1A, but crush the 2A.
I Agree with the rest of your post.
No, but you most certainly can dictate WHO those rights apply to..... and they apply to CITIZENS.
And here we are talking about giving 2a rights to illegals. When in some parts of the country CITIZENS dont even have 2A rights.
And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?
Our own country chooses to ignore it in certain democrat run shitholes.That other sh*thole countries choose to ignore it, does not mean it is not a natural human right.
Now, does it extend to allowing that illegal to purchase a gun and using it?
The government doesnt give you rights. We all follow laws.It's cute that you tink that government gives you rights.
That's part of the problem in this country and why its falling apart.
ETA:
What difference should it make functionally? If them even standing here isnt legal, then they need to be deported or locked up.... for that crime.
Not some malum prohibitum bullshit about a gun.
Hell you could probably argue just fine that illegal entrants are subject to imprisonment and/or deportation and do all kinds of jingo stuff focused around that.
Nobody wants to pay for that, though. Esp not most D and R pols tied up in the illegal labor lobby.
If illegals were handled correctly this entire question would be a nullity, and it wouldnt be in front of the supreme court. But I digress....
Lol thats now how the BOR works beatrice. It's the same reason why we dont just shoot illegals in the road and pick them up with
forklifts etc. by denying things like BOR protections, you're basically arguing they're not humans.
It's trivially easy to make legal arguments that illegals dont have the right to vote (well, at least at the beginning), "act as a citizen" (eg, obtain a passport, or diplomatic protections or assistance) run for office, etc, get welfare, put their kids in public schools (at least ones not citizens) things like that. You can argue that illegals do not have a right to remain in america. And yes, the application of that in reality is garbage but thats not really the focus of the question here. RKBA is not a product of citizenship or government. That's laughable. (Even if the feds think and keep foisting that BS on the public, doesn't make it right. )
2A as a "Right of the 2nd class" = unmitigated authoritian faggotry. By taking in this "only citizens have RKBA" shit worldview, you're basically endorsing that brand of faggotry, along with every other "cuz guns are DEADLY N SPESHUL!!!" decision a court makes based off the doctrine of "RKBA is a right of the 2nd class". Several of us have discussed this here ad nauseam in the past.
You can't have the cake and eat it simultaneously. It is legally incongruent.
Here lies the problem. The Rs and the D’s both want it and their media has brainwashed you into thinking its okIt's cute that you tink that government gives you rights.
That's part of the problem in this country and why its falling apart.
ETA:
Hell you could probably argue just fine that illegal entrants are subject to imprisonment and/or deportation and do all kinds of jingo stuff focused around that.
Nobody wants to pay for that, though. Esp not most D and R pols tied up in the illegal labor lobby.
Perfect example. She tried to trample on our rights with some statement.
The government doesnt give you rights. We all follow laws.
Let me know when its ok not to, ill be the first to start right after you.
You are correct and I don't disagree with you. Prior to Trump, nobody seriously wanted to defend our borders from further assault and politicians, employers, and overwhelming numbers of people were willing to live with those who were already here.This is unfortunately what will destroy the country eventually. The attitude that we cannot control our borders and shouldn't. The attitude that's its too big of a job.
We can import them and fly them by night everywhere......we can export them just as fast, but we won't....and eventually it will destroy the rule of law.
Lol thats now how the BOR works beatrice. It's the same reason why we dont just shoot illegals in the road and pick them up with
forklifts etc. by denying things like BOR protections, you're basically arguing they're not humans.
It's trivially easy to make legal arguments that illegals dont have the right to vote (well, at least at the beginning), "act as a citizen" (eg, obtain a passport, or diplomatic protections or assistance) run for office, etc, get welfare, put their kids in public schools (at least ones not citizens) things like that. You can argue that illegals do not have a right to remain in america. And yes, the application of that in reality is garbage but thats not really the focus of the question here. RKBA is not a product of citizenship or government. That's laughable. (Even if the feds think and keep foisting that BS on the public, doesn't make it right. )
2A as a "Right of the 2nd class" = unmitigated authoritian faggotry. By taking in this "only citizens have RKBA" shit worldview, you're basically endorsing that brand of faggotry, along with every other "cuz guns are DEADLY N SPESHUL!!!" decision a court makes based off the doctrine of "RKBA is a right of the 2nd class". Several of us have discussed this here ad nauseam in the past.
You can't have the cake and eat it simultaneously. It is legally incongruent.
Here lies the problem. The Rs and the D’s both want it and their media has brainwashed you into thinking its ok
The constitution clearly states the requirements and criteria for becoming a citizen........swearing allegiance to this country and serving in the armed forces is one such method, there are others.
What's your stance on green card holders?And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?
There are ways to come here legally. Use them, get in, and ill fight for any Citizens 2a rights.
Here's why your argument doesnt work in THIS case
RKBA as it pertains to a person who is not in the country legally is fundamental different
Its not like right to a trial (speedy or otherwise) which applies regardless of legal precense
RKBA pertains to the several state boundaries.....if a person is present illegally then how can one possibly assert a right that is predicated on them legally being in the US
Its not fundamentally different than trying to assert you have a RKBA on your neighbors property who has posted no trespassing/no guns signs
And here we are talking about giving 2a rights to illegals. When in some parts of the country CITIZENS dont even have 2A rights.
ASS backward.
And the whole thing on its face is stupid. Lets give an invader who has never sworn alliegance to the country legal access to firearms. Think anything bad could happen?
I thought the first rule of war would not be to arm your invading forces. But. Hell you bleeding heart motherf***ers must have a different thought process.
There are ways to come here legally. Use them, get in, and ill fight for any Citizens 2a rights.
Lol, again you're just sucking for the jingoservative retard land "right of a 2nd class" nonsense thats been foisted on us for decades.
Lol where the f*** does it say that?
Lol please, thats a terrible trope, you're not really going to trot out that turd are you? That's trespassing, and has nothing to do with
guns. Even in that case the person is being prosecuted for trespassing not for the "crime" of posessing a gun.
The idea of a crime of "possessing a gun" is total f***ing nonsense.
I’m a bit of a constitution nerd and I’m fairly certain this is not in the constitution. You may want to read section 1 of the 14th amendment.… The constitution clearly states the requirements and criteria for becoming a citizen........swearing allegiance to this country and serving in the armed forces is one such method, there are others.
I wonder if Kyle Rittenhouse's name was Ricardo Montocasa and the literal only different thing about the case was that he was an illegal immigrant, how many on here would have argued he had no right to defend himself or possess a firearm and should be handled as a murderer.Lol, again you're just sucking for the jingoservative retard land "right of a 2nd class" nonsense thats been foisted on us for decades.
Lol where the f*** does it say that?
Lol please, thats a terrible trope, you're not really going to trot out that turd are you? That's trespassing, and has nothing to do with
guns. Even in that case the person is being prosecuted for trespassing not for the "crime" of posessing a gun.
The idea of a crime of "possessing a gun" is total f***ing nonsense.
That's an extreme example but ignored the vast shades of grey that have to be accounted for, including LEO/DA discretion. Dreams of mass deporations are dreams. Anything that expands the 2A rights to more people is a good thing. We can't argue God-given rights on one hand and then Citizens on the other. If anything, I can see the decision denying rights based on the expansion of the administrative state. And out of all the 2A cases SCOTUS could hear, they chose this one? I guess it's better than nothing.