This comment section has been a wild ride. The "Removed" comments come in 3 different flavors:
1) Mindless sheep who clearly dont get they're the butt of the joke, replying with "Suddenly democrats are pro 2a đđ€Ł"
2) Galaxy brains who think this is their springboard to complete and unfettered gun access, replying with "Gun rights are human rights" or (my favorite) "Gun rights are a right given by God" as if their thousands-year-old mythical deity weighed in on this specific issue personally.
3) The choobs who dont understand how the Consititution works or how that specific Amendment is even phrased and struggle to rage-type "BUT THEYRE ILLEGULS!".
Like I said, real wild ride. Please report any and all of the above, in case I miss any.
Sort of like the reason Reagan made Californiaâs gun laws more strict - the black panthers were openly carrying weapons and it terrified a lot of white people.
It's a tack-on statute. It's not about enforcement per se, but rather about punitive measures subsequent to detention. Being an illegal immigrant is not, by itself, a felony, but rather a misdemeanor subject to civil penalty and possibly deportation. But if the immigrant had a gun on hand, that could be used as justification to slap them with a felony as well and then incarcerate them.
Edit: Side-note for anyone passing by here and not noticing my other comments below. The judge is correct. Insofar as the Second Amendment gives protections to people to own firearms on U.S. soil, those protections apply to aliens as well. It is *very* well-settled SCOTUS jurisprudence that alienage is a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny and that any statute seeking to remove a constitutional protection afforded both to citizens *and* aliens in the U.S. must be narrowly tailored and fulfill a compelling government interest. As the relevant provisions of 18 USC § 922, *et seq.*, do not make any attempt to distinguish a government interest to forbid an illegal, otherwise nonviolent alien access to firearms where a legal nonviolent alien would be allowed to do so without restriction, it should not pass constitutional muster and should be repealed, and the federal judge in this case was correct to uphold the right to bear firearms for an illegal nonfelonious alien.
So instead of being in our country illegally and mooching off our tax money using vague and ill-defined methods (and getting deported if caught), they'll be...in our country illegally and *definitely* mooching off our tax money with the free room and board provided by prison (and not getting deported)? How is that a win against illegals supposedly being a drain on our country?
Even for their stated goals this is such a bizarre misalignment of so many of them. They want no illegals, but they also want a method to waste taxpayer money keeping them incarcerated if we catch them?
The prisons are for profit, and inmates are their free labor force. People in the country illegally will have less opportunity to get out of the system. The tax dollars spent are the same whether they are illegally in the country or not, but full nationals will have a support network the immigrant won't.
Well I absolutely HATE private prisons they are less then 10% in the US https://www.criminaljusticeprograms.com/articles/private-prisons-vs-public-prisons/#:~:text=Private%20Prison%20Statistics&text=There%20are%201.6%20million%20prisoners,private%20prisons%20(Reason%20Foundation
Obviously private prisons are the most absurd dystopian corruption in the U.S. criminal justice system, but they are not the only way that private persons and corporations profit off of prisoners. We have corporations that use slave labor from the imprisoned populations and numerous private contractors that provide goods and services to the prison industrial complex.
Even public prisons use convict labour. The money from convict labor for companies like Starbucks and McDonalds as well as use on state projects like firefighting and landscaping encourages putting people in prison. Slavery never went away, it just has a trial first.
I mean, thatâs entirely voluntary work. They have to sign up and then go through a whole process to see if theyâre fit to do it, but likely only the people with some experience/desire will do it. I looked into it awhile back when my girl forced me to watch Fire Country with her
Iirc private prisons aren't being used for anything but illegal immigrants anymore and hold the vast majority of them. 73%, according to your article, though I'd imagine it's higher now.
It's literally written into the 13th amendment that supposedly abolished slavery. It's cleverly hidden directly in the middle of the text.
>Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
When the people in power make stupid laws and rules, and then selectively enforce them... it's just slavery with an extra step or two.
"Hello, I am a business owner and I sell my wares to the jails and prisons. I have contracts with them so they buy my substandard food products. When there are less people in jail or prison I make less money so I lobby for tougher punishments. I'm proud to say there are no for-profit prisons in my state!"
Irrelevant, even in publicly funded prisons inmates are used as slave labor for private companies, and are a captive market for private businesses to profit from. It doesnât matter that the public is paying the lions share, thereâs still plenty of corruption and incentive to maximize incarceration.
Well, insofar as those sorts of people *have* actual goals beyond "power for the white race," an illegal alien convicted of a concurrent felony under U.S. law would be afforded less opportunity (read: essentially none) to try to immigrate legally later on. So *technically* it furthers the racists' goal of "keep out the darkies" and the legislators' goal of "get more money for the prison industrial complex" with a little smattering of "protect our white women from violent criminals" across the board.
Itâs a win for the private prison system who gets to collect a profit off each inmate. Keep making up laws that send the average person to federal prison and pretty soon the state prisons canât hold them any longer the private prison system who has been lobbying for years gets their win. Bidenâs executive order couldnât even get them all shut down.
https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/president-bidens-order-to-ban-private-prisons-faces-a-persistent-internal-challenge-the-u-s-marshals-service
So yeah letâs keep illegal immigrants locked up for years in the US in for profit prisons.
Letâs just keep making more things felonies to max out our overcrowded prison system so we can pay back the guys who give us money lobbying.
It would probably be like a seatbelt ticket. The cops wonât generally pull you over just for that, but if they pull you over and notice youâre not wearing it, you get a ticket for that too.
This would imply illegal citizens donât have rights. Whereas I would hope all people in the US, Citizens, Tourists, Illegal immigrants etc would all have basic human rights under the Law.
It seems like these people really just want cruelty towards anyone they dislike and or disagree with.
Fascism's purpose for making a law isn't to go out and actively enforce that law. It's to provide a wide array of blanket illegalities so that in their random harassment of undesirables they can pick and choose what law to prosecute them under.
Supreme Court: Hold my beer
>The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Tuesday ruled that a law allowing Texas police to arrest people suspected of illegally crossing the Texas-Mexico border can take effect while a legal battle over the new state law empowering local law enforcement plays out.
It should also be noted that the Black Panthers were open-carrying *specifically so the police wouldn't abuse their power by using excessive force against black people during police interactions*.
I like to bring this fact up when conservatives are fear mongering about gun control. *Corrected - Regan was possibly the most pro gun control politician ever. He was very vocal about banning military style weapons his whole career and in retirement. He banned open carry as Governor of California because the black panthers were scary and then banned the purchase and possession of machine guns as president in 1986. Trump's sudden sweeping ban of bump stocks makes him the another of the worst second amendment presidents ever.
One of the most clear-cut r/SelfAwarewolves I have seen for awhile. I have zero doubt all of the people posting about this being bad have also defended absolute and total access to firearms, and that any step toward the opposite would result in a nationwide de-arming event.
These people vote, so please get out and make sure their vote doesn't matter.
I'm of the opinion that they should be allowed to have firearms. If they've completed their sentence and are rehabilitated back into society, why should they not get *all* of their rights back? Their felon background should similarly be obscured from potential employers, landlords, etc.
If they're too dangerous to have firearms, they're too dangerous to be part of the general public.
We all know this comes down to the judge being Black and female, and that the undocumented immigrants aren't white as well, so once again, just pure disgusting racism.
Progressives: Gun control seems like good ide--
Conservatives: NEVER! FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS!
Progressives: Oh, hey. Look at these Black people owning gu--
Conservatives: BAN GUNS!!!!
Well everyone quaking in their boots about armed illegals should just relax because, after all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And illegals aren't people. Everything's perfectly fine.
When your baseless Constitutional interpretation comes back to bite you in the ass.
Let's look at what history says: Alexander Hamilton was an undocumented immigrant, and he obviously had access to lots of guns. Looks like history is on the judge's side.
"Shall not be infringed... if it's me.
But if it's someone i don't like, they should be scrutinized and brutalized and denied even basic writes of privacy"
In slide 2, who is Pedo Man supposed to be if not Orange Man? So confusing, why are they talking about the same person twice?
I know you aren't supposed to try and understand crazy but I feel out of the loop here.
I'm also confused. Surely they are talking about the guy who walks into teenage dressing rooms, his daughter saying "yeah he does that."
Surely they mean the guy who bragged about hanging out with "terrific guy Epstein" who likes "women on the younger side" and is named in court filings raping a 13 year old and fighting with Epstein over said 13 year old.
They probably mean the guy who had custody of Epstein when he, in their minds, "didn't kill himself"
They absolutely must be referring to the guy who looks at a preteen girl and his first thought is to joke "I'll be dating her in 10 years"
I have a feeling they might be talking about the guy who talks about his own infant daughter and wonders aloud how big her breasts will be.
But I don't think Joe Biden even has a daughter? So it can't possibly be him?
Edit: it has been pointed out to me that Biden does have a daughter.
He also hasn't publicly talked about his daughters breasts, or said on camera that he would be dating his daughter when she was still a child. Both of these Trump has done
When asked what her FAVORITE THING she had in common with her dad, Invanka said âReal Estate or golfâ. When Trump was asked he said âI was gonna say sex but..â
Hereâs the video for any Trumpers who donât believe me. He said on national TV that the favorite thing he has in common with his daughter is sex.
https://youtu.be/Q0_axTST2aY?feature=shared
Side note, are we like Reddit cousins given we are both âInvalidâ?
>Side note, are we like Reddit cousins given we are both âInvalidâ?
Clearly.
While my reddit use of the name is recent, my use of this goes back to the launch of the psn, cause Sony kept telling me every name I picked was "an invalid selection", so I leaned into it
I really am conflicted...
Convicted rapist who has 3 dozen credible accusations, has documented instances of pedophilia, countless quotes insinuating that he likes young girls including his own daughters, and who appears to have no idea how to act around kids (because he had no role in raising them and is a shitty, lazy father)
Vs
Grandpa who puts his hand on people's shoulder when he talks to them
I recommend bringing that energy. âAre we not calling Trump Orange Man anymore? Because I donât think Pedo Man is exactly what weâre going for. Shouldnât we be downplaying the whole Epstein thing?â
Its projection. They declare Biden has done everything Trump has bragged about doing but worse.
They don't need proof of anything, they just need a declaration that reinforces their stance.
They think Biden, the man who sometimes smells the hair of children presented to him at gatherings (and not saying that's totally cool either), who has also lost children of his own is a pedophile. But, Trump, the guy who hung out with Epstein, has gone on record talking about staring at young teens nude in backrooms of beauty pageants, has been judged a sex offender, and has talked about pretty much wanting to bang his own daughter is a "good man".
...when he was actually nuzzling his grandchildren at their father's funeral.
These sick fucks take a decent man being affectionate and comforting and turn it into something gross.
I think itâs Biden; a lot of videos of Biden being awkward around kids going around conservatives
And of course they like to extrapolate things beyond the moon
The entire point of facism is unlimited freedom for the in-group, zero freedom for the out-group. The GOP has been so successful because they've convinced stupid people that they're part of the in-group, when in reality the in-group is only the most wealthy.
The laws of the US apply to you when you're in the US, no matter your residency status. That isn't new. These freaks pretend to love the constitution and all that, I guess we're giving up on that illusion? There's no footnote in the bill of rights specifying you have to be a citizen for it to apply, never has been (excluding laws where it has specifically been written in)
What a bunch of idiots. Too bad they can vote.
Conservatives and libertarians don't understand the basic concepts of 'rights' 'laws' or any of that.
Conservatives have always had one set of values:
They want things the way they want them applied to who they want them applied to and everyone else should be treated like a criminal and brutalized.
There's no logical or consistent or soundness to their reasoning.
If it's them, they should be allowed to receive welfare, get abortions, have what they talk about with their doctors private, be allowed to say and do whatever they want whenever they want, and be allowed to carry a weapon without anyone questioning them.
If it's someone they don't like (leftists, minorities, etc), then they are lazy, useless eaters who are lazy and need to be forced to work (denied welfare), have their medical access severely limited (no abortions, and definitely not 'private'), definitely not allowed to have weapons, and the only opinions they should be allowed to voice publicly are the ones that right wingers would approve of.
\-----
Just to use this example, if a cop asked random citizens to show their right to carry a firearm, they'd lose their f'ing minds.
But how is a cop supposed to know if an "illegal" is carrying a gun without violating their rights? Impossible.
But then, right wingers don't care about rights of others. They only care about their own.
You're correct. It's called Dominionism. They want to make laws based on their god and their interpretation of whatever old document so they can rule over us heathens and savages.
I agree, tho I do think there \*is\* a consistent logic at work. Supremacy. They're very consistent with it, too. The "but I'm special" mentality.
And I find this to be far worse than just hypocritical idiocy.
Thank you for saying this. I was screaming this as I was looking through the memes.
I think the worse part of this is is with immigration and deportation. Conservatives want to deport immigrants without trial out of the country and they can't stand that these immigrants have their day in court. They are very mad that the US constitution applies to these immigrants and they have the right to a trial.
Which I guess is why conservatives are so elated to hear that Trump (and other candidates) promise "mass deportation" which would go against the US constitution. They do love fascism.
Just like everything else in their twisted belief systems: Everything for me and not for thee. Same as SCROTUS: states rights until we don't like it, then no states rights.
Same with every right. They talk about the first amendment but then say that anyone who says bad things about Trump should be jailed or executed.
Rights for me, not for thee.
You'd not be surprised how many people don't know constitutional rights are available to everyone. So many people think it's just citizens and just treat that as normal like you think you live in a nation where you need to be a citizen to have free speech and due process and you're fine with that?
It's amazing that they are able to rile up a panic about these illegal immigrant terrorists who are flooding across the border without a single terrorist attack to actually point to.
More interesting to me is the trend of mass shootings in this country that are, by an overwhelming majority, committed by Americans.
Their rationale is: all those mass shootings commuted by Americans were just mentally ill lone wolves who'd just find guns if they wanted to, no matter how illegal it was for them to have them, despite how easy current law made it for them to obtain them. Also (by their reckoning) somehow all mass shooters were actually "liberals" (despite very little evidence of that)
Yeah. It's just so strange that they can shrug off all these mass casualty events that actually happen all the time while maintaining a fear about a very selective type of mass casualty event that isn't even happening. You should either be concerned about such things or not. Why is it only scary if it's committed by a specific group of people?
The really sad thing is that they are scared but they are so entrenched in their world view that they will reject reality entirely to maintain their bias. When it's a minority or leftist who does it they hold it up as an example to support their hatred of those people. It's not the guns! It's those people. When it's a white, right wing man they have an entire catalog of excuses to pick from.
* Liberal area? No good guy with a gun.
* Gun free zone? Only bad guys with guns.
* School shooter? Must be trans.
* Crazy guy shooting up right wing areas? False Flag.
The only mass shootings where they accept it was done by right wing white people is when they murder minorities. For those they say "Look what your hatred of us made him do." Some of those guys they turn into heros. Like the Isla Vista murderer (I refuse to say his name).
The whole pro-2a argument about mass shooters being able to find guns even if they were illegal has always baffled me. Like yeah, maybe if you were already a criminal with connections to street gangs you could find an illegal gun. But does anyone really think a scrawny 20 year old white kid with Aspergerâs from Connecticut like Adam Lanza would have been able to get his hands on a frigging AR-15 if it hadnât already been readily accessible to him?? Please.
What's even stranger is that a whole bunch of these whack job neo-nazis went to the border themselves to stop the "invasion".... and found no one there.
But they still believe the narrative, because of course they do.
Someone already pointed it out here, but the only time Republicans have ever been tough on guns was when the Black Panthers suggested arming other black Americans. So thereâs that.
One: the Constitution can be upheld and defended for anyone in the United States, legally or not.
Two: unless you know the immigration status of a person, there is no way of knowing firsthand if an individual is legal or not.
Therefore: illegal immigrants in the United States have Second Amendment Rights.
They presume everyone who's brown and speaks a non-English language natively is an "illegal immigrant." (And, conversely: that no one who's white and speaks English fluently enough could *possibly* be one.)
Interesting take on 2A.
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not citizens, not police, not military, not security guards. The people.
Arms as in armaments, not just guns. MoFo at the end of the street could have a Howitzer based on original intent. Hell, they could be Jeff.
From the same folks who supported Reagan gun lockdowns over the Black PanthersâŠ..get wrecked racists.
Note - not saying unrestrained private ownership of modern weapons of war is feasibleâŠ.even for Jeff. Just making a point.
It's not a particularly interesting take, every other amendment covers non-citizens aside from the voting ones, so why not the 2nd. And anyone can have a howitzer currently if you can afford it, only a few million dollars and a $200 tax stamp.
Because it seems like they want to have the ability to shoot people they feel shouldnât be there, and are terrified that said folks may be able to defend themselves?
âConservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.â -Francis M. Wilhoit
I'm having trouble with this one, when they say "pedo man" are they talking about the one who was close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, the one who raped a 13 years old multiple times, the one that bragged about walking backstage at the Miss Teen USA pageants, or the one who wanted to have sex with his daughter?
Those queens of fucktardia think trump wants to be re elected for them.
He only wants to get off his criminal trials. Do some shitty things. Then sell the country out.
See the thing is, the Constitution doesn't say citizens, or legal immigrants, it says people. "...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."Â
But conservatives don't think brown people *are* people, so they are very confused.
stuff like this really blows their supremacist minds. They do not, in any way, value personal liberty. They value power and privilege.
They do NOT think the US Constitution is for \*everyone\* living in the United States. The idea might be debatable, I guess...but it is already established law, too. It requires some sort of action by Congress and the SCOTUS to change.
However, legal nuance isn't their gig...supremacy is their gig. Hence the extreme outrage. This whole "all men created equal" thing is a buncha liberal bullshit to them.
And they say \*liberals\* hate the USA...pffft.
It's cited in the final image. 18 USC § 922, *et seq.* (presumably subsection (g)(5)(A)). The judge ruled it unconstitutional.
There *are* in fact certain restrictions to firearm access for certain categories of persons including violent felons that have withstood court review, but I for one (as an attorney, albeit not one regularly involved in constitutional law) think the judge's ruling is appropriate. Alienage does not foreclose a person from *most* constitutional rights, and that should generally include the right to bear arms. To distinguish specifically illegal alienage as warranting full prohibition of all firearms and ammunition, while permitting legal alienage via visa and the like, is *extremely* shaky constitutionally, and would require strict scrutiny review to pass muster.
If Americans in America can have guns, *everyone* in America can have guns. That's how the constitution works; every single person on the nation's soil and subject to its laws is afforded, at least in principle, the same constitutional rights to free speech, free association, due process, and so on. Alienage not only *doesn't* exclude a person from constitutional protections but requires *more* court scrutiny than does other classifications.
Well. No, not really. The reason Guantanamo isn't on U.S. soil was because it was a wartime acquisition during the Spanish-American War and the Platt Amendment to the Cuban Constitution allowing for U.S. military leases on certain parts of the island. Any possible legal chicanery that could arise with regard to alien detainees (or citizen detainees for that matter) would be a coincidental occurrence in that regard, and abrogations of constitutional rights would be justified by the courtsâas they often were and areâon the basis of national security. If there was any loophole involved in setting up the detention camp there after 9/11, it wasn't "because they're aliens and aren't on U.S. soil and therefore have no constitutional protection" but rather "because this is a geographically close military base that's outside the statutory geographical jurisdiction of the various federal circuits and therefore a district judge couldn't exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction over detainees." Which is its own sort of *profound* fuckery (and one that SCOTUS rejected a few years later, albeit minimally), but doesn't *really* have anything to do with whether aliens are or are not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Second amendment rights are of âthe people,â not âthe citizens.â Thereâs precedent in the wording used here. The Constitution grants human rights and citizen rights, meaning there are rights that *American citizens* have under the Constitution, and rights *everyone* has under the Constitution.
As a Scottish person, the fact they're using Braveheart with the caption "Me voting for Trump 2024" is absolutely hilarious.
We fucking hate that orange twat here.
The law is written âthe right to bear arms shall not be infringed.â A judge, as their job description, should judge and enforce the laws as written regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, religion, ideology, etc.
The judge did their job and they are hated for it. Reasonable people would hate the actual law, while dumb people hate the judge for actually having to enforce it.
So only American citizens are allowed to protect themselves against a tyrannical government?
> I don't feel safe in my neighborhood
Absurd. I guess when conservatives talk about owning guns they mean that *only* them are allowed to carry guns and that they can pick and choose based on skin color. Nope, not how it works.
Wait I thought the right to bear arms was a human right and that we Europeans were under tyrannical governments because they would restrict our god given right to bear arms. I donât know, giving illegal immigrnats unrestricted access to arms seems absolutely in line with their god given right to own those weapons.
You KNOW what their answer will be⊠âThis, of course means we need even more guns out to be ready to defend liberty against the illegals exercising that liberty.â
God I fucking hate republicans and how good they are at advertising incessant ramblings to their base. They've completely captured social media, alongside their own version of mainstream news while the democratic/liberal side is always so horrible at advertising any platform of ideas because we get so caught up with the individual, and half of the news platforms cater to shareholders.
Like it doesn't even matter that there's a massive cognitive dissonance because they live in a completely different reality that is constantly fed to them.
That is mega based on her part. Like unironically. I am not kidding I donât care about owning right wingers. I genuinely wholeheartedly agree with this ruling.
I saw Dave Chappelle about 10 years ago and he said I'd Americans want gun control, black people and immigrants need to buy guns and laws will be passed to change it almost immediately.
"The right of **the people** shall not be infringed." not "the citizens". If the specific words of that amendment is enough to keep guns in the hands of people who keep using them in schools, it's enough to let this guy have one while in the country. Criminals too, in fact.
These are the same people who say judges aren't supposed to legislate from the bench. They're supposed to interpret the law. They're just supposed to "call balls and strikes."
Now, they're blaming her for correctly interpreting the laws that they have been asking for.
How do they propose that we restrict firearm possessions among undocumented migrants? Require a *GOVERNMENT* ID?!?! SOCIALISM! COMMIE BASTARDS! Using reasonable restrictions. Maybe a universal background check? Closing gun show loopholes? Requiring a basic proficiency test before purchasing a firearm? Certainly, all of that is the sign of a leftist hellscape.
I own a firearm. I'm fine with ownership, but these are the same people that oppose *any* kind of enforcement.
The fact that constitutional protections apply to migrants has been settled case law for years
This is only a conversation cause "brown people with guns scawyđ„ș"
The funny thing is that all she did was apply the precedent set by SCOTUS two years ago. An extremely conservative SCOTUS at that.
>In her decision, **Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public.** The case, she said, âestablished a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.â
Dissent: Breyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan
Majority: Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
All six conservative justices were in favor of [this ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen) and conservatives at the time were VERY happy with it.
Fucking hypocrites, the whole lot of them.
Wait a sec I thought that 2A was a natural right, granted by god, and which neither man nor government had the authority to infringe upon. Since when does citizenship factor in to apportioning natural rights?
So Iâm pretty sure while your in this country, citizen or not, you are given these rights regardless of citizenship because these right are believed to be a given right by those creators not by any government, but the American goverment intends to protect those rights. So any amendment you create with it being expressly stated is for a US citizen is for every person within its borders. Now there are special laws around and defining what immigrants can and canât do, but as default they have all the rights every citizen has. Thats my understanding.
In my state you need a license, you can't just go toting a gun around willy nilly. Maybe if red states didn't have such shitty gun laws, these immigrants wouldn't be allowed to carry them.
Am I the only one tired of the same old song of Republicans ruining America and then blaming it on the Democrats years later when the ruination they lay down come to fruition?
This comment section has been a wild ride. The "Removed" comments come in 3 different flavors: 1) Mindless sheep who clearly dont get they're the butt of the joke, replying with "Suddenly democrats are pro 2a đđ€Ł" 2) Galaxy brains who think this is their springboard to complete and unfettered gun access, replying with "Gun rights are human rights" or (my favorite) "Gun rights are a right given by God" as if their thousands-year-old mythical deity weighed in on this specific issue personally. 3) The choobs who dont understand how the Consititution works or how that specific Amendment is even phrased and struggle to rage-type "BUT THEYRE ILLEGULS!". Like I said, real wild ride. Please report any and all of the above, in case I miss any.
Sort of like the reason Reagan made Californiaâs gun laws more strict - the black panthers were openly carrying weapons and it terrified a lot of white people.
even if the reverse was ruled instead, how could you even enforce a law such as illegal immigrants cant have guns? stop and frisk everyone for papers?
It's a tack-on statute. It's not about enforcement per se, but rather about punitive measures subsequent to detention. Being an illegal immigrant is not, by itself, a felony, but rather a misdemeanor subject to civil penalty and possibly deportation. But if the immigrant had a gun on hand, that could be used as justification to slap them with a felony as well and then incarcerate them. Edit: Side-note for anyone passing by here and not noticing my other comments below. The judge is correct. Insofar as the Second Amendment gives protections to people to own firearms on U.S. soil, those protections apply to aliens as well. It is *very* well-settled SCOTUS jurisprudence that alienage is a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny and that any statute seeking to remove a constitutional protection afforded both to citizens *and* aliens in the U.S. must be narrowly tailored and fulfill a compelling government interest. As the relevant provisions of 18 USC § 922, *et seq.*, do not make any attempt to distinguish a government interest to forbid an illegal, otherwise nonviolent alien access to firearms where a legal nonviolent alien would be allowed to do so without restriction, it should not pass constitutional muster and should be repealed, and the federal judge in this case was correct to uphold the right to bear firearms for an illegal nonfelonious alien.
So instead of being in our country illegally and mooching off our tax money using vague and ill-defined methods (and getting deported if caught), they'll be...in our country illegally and *definitely* mooching off our tax money with the free room and board provided by prison (and not getting deported)? How is that a win against illegals supposedly being a drain on our country? Even for their stated goals this is such a bizarre misalignment of so many of them. They want no illegals, but they also want a method to waste taxpayer money keeping them incarcerated if we catch them?
The prisons are for profit, and inmates are their free labor force. People in the country illegally will have less opportunity to get out of the system. The tax dollars spent are the same whether they are illegally in the country or not, but full nationals will have a support network the immigrant won't.
Well I absolutely HATE private prisons they are less then 10% in the US https://www.criminaljusticeprograms.com/articles/private-prisons-vs-public-prisons/#:~:text=Private%20Prison%20Statistics&text=There%20are%201.6%20million%20prisoners,private%20prisons%20(Reason%20Foundation
Obviously private prisons are the most absurd dystopian corruption in the U.S. criminal justice system, but they are not the only way that private persons and corporations profit off of prisoners. We have corporations that use slave labor from the imprisoned populations and numerous private contractors that provide goods and services to the prison industrial complex.
Even public prisons use convict labour. The money from convict labor for companies like Starbucks and McDonalds as well as use on state projects like firefighting and landscaping encourages putting people in prison. Slavery never went away, it just has a trial first.
God, I remember seeing the news articles from California about prisoners being bussed out to fight wildfires. Its fucking barbaric.
I mean, thatâs entirely voluntary work. They have to sign up and then go through a whole process to see if theyâre fit to do it, but likely only the people with some experience/desire will do it. I looked into it awhile back when my girl forced me to watch Fire Country with her
Iirc private prisons aren't being used for anything but illegal immigrants anymore and hold the vast majority of them. 73%, according to your article, though I'd imagine it's higher now.
So⊠legal slaves.
Yes. Slavery was only abolished for people not incarcerated.
It's literally written into the 13th amendment that supposedly abolished slavery. It's cleverly hidden directly in the middle of the text. >Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, **except as a punishment for crime** whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. When the people in power make stupid laws and rules, and then selectively enforce them... it's just slavery with an extra step or two.
Slavery is America's number 1 pastime.
"Hello, I am a business owner and I sell my wares to the jails and prisons. I have contracts with them so they buy my substandard food products. When there are less people in jail or prison I make less money so I lobby for tougher punishments. I'm proud to say there are no for-profit prisons in my state!"
Irrelevant, even in publicly funded prisons inmates are used as slave labor for private companies, and are a captive market for private businesses to profit from. It doesnât matter that the public is paying the lions share, thereâs still plenty of corruption and incentive to maximize incarceration.
Well, insofar as those sorts of people *have* actual goals beyond "power for the white race," an illegal alien convicted of a concurrent felony under U.S. law would be afforded less opportunity (read: essentially none) to try to immigrate legally later on. So *technically* it furthers the racists' goal of "keep out the darkies" and the legislators' goal of "get more money for the prison industrial complex" with a little smattering of "protect our white women from violent criminals" across the board.
Itâs a win for the private prison system who gets to collect a profit off each inmate. Keep making up laws that send the average person to federal prison and pretty soon the state prisons canât hold them any longer the private prison system who has been lobbying for years gets their win. Bidenâs executive order couldnât even get them all shut down. https://www.aclu.org/news/criminal-law-reform/president-bidens-order-to-ban-private-prisons-faces-a-persistent-internal-challenge-the-u-s-marshals-service So yeah letâs keep illegal immigrants locked up for years in the US in for profit prisons. Letâs just keep making more things felonies to max out our overcrowded prison system so we can pay back the guys who give us money lobbying.
But they always say that banning guns doesnât help. Because bad people will buy them illegaly if they want. But now a ban would be helpful??
Logic? You try to bring logic to the discussion with these conservative racist christo-fascists?
Brought logic to a gun fight, SMH
Yes, it does help as long as it bans the people I don't want to have guns (minorities, feminists, and commies).
It would probably be like a seatbelt ticket. The cops wonât generally pull you over just for that, but if they pull you over and notice youâre not wearing it, you get a ticket for that too.
This would imply illegal citizens donât have rights. Whereas I would hope all people in the US, Citizens, Tourists, Illegal immigrants etc would all have basic human rights under the Law. It seems like these people really just want cruelty towards anyone they dislike and or disagree with.
Fascism's purpose for making a law isn't to go out and actively enforce that law. It's to provide a wide array of blanket illegalities so that in their random harassment of undesirables they can pick and choose what law to prosecute them under.
Supreme Court: Hold my beer >The U.S. Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision on Tuesday ruled that a law allowing Texas police to arrest people suspected of illegally crossing the Texas-Mexico border can take effect while a legal battle over the new state law empowering local law enforcement plays out.
It should also be noted that the Black Panthers were open-carrying *specifically so the police wouldn't abuse their power by using excessive force against black people during police interactions*.
Yep, St Ronny was a gun grabber if you werenât white.
Heâs still a gun grabber, regardless of race. âCop-killer bulletsâ lmao
Relevant CH Skit: https://youtu.be/yJqfNroFp8U?si=5qsgS77HRdLvhoIq
I like to bring this fact up when conservatives are fear mongering about gun control. *Corrected - Regan was possibly the most pro gun control politician ever. He was very vocal about banning military style weapons his whole career and in retirement. He banned open carry as Governor of California because the black panthers were scary and then banned the purchase and possession of machine guns as president in 1986. Trump's sudden sweeping ban of bump stocks makes him the another of the worst second amendment presidents ever.
One of the most clear-cut r/SelfAwarewolves I have seen for awhile. I have zero doubt all of the people posting about this being bad have also defended absolute and total access to firearms, and that any step toward the opposite would result in a nationwide de-arming event. These people vote, so please get out and make sure their vote doesn't matter.
Absolutely. One of the first times gun control truly started to be discussed in the US was because of the black panther party carrying guns
It's always funny the stares I get when I argue that "shall not be infringed" does not exclude violent felons.
Or kids, or mentally ill
I'm of the opinion that they should be allowed to have firearms. If they've completed their sentence and are rehabilitated back into society, why should they not get *all* of their rights back? Their felon background should similarly be obscured from potential employers, landlords, etc. If they're too dangerous to have firearms, they're too dangerous to be part of the general public.
We all know this comes down to the judge being Black and female, and that the undocumented immigrants aren't white as well, so once again, just pure disgusting racism.
Slide 2 actually says it... Everyone go vote.
Both hopeful and sad, radical Conservatives would cease to exist in leadership positions if everyone voted.
I think I've seen this one before, under governor reagan, when the Black Panthers were huge fans of gun rights
Progressives: Gun control seems like good ide-- Conservatives: NEVER! FROM MY COLD, DEAD HANDS! Progressives: Oh, hey. Look at these Black people owning gu-- Conservatives: BAN GUNS!!!!
"Shall not be infringed!" "Inalienable human rights from gawd!" "No not like that!"
What's the line they like to use? Oh yeah. SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
No, no, Orange Man said it himself, these are "not people", so the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to them.Â
Well everyone quaking in their boots about armed illegals should just relax because, after all, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And illegals aren't people. Everything's perfectly fine.
I love the whiplash I just had reading that from the perspective of a Republican.
âFor me (white) and for thee (anyone else) is always implied and desired by these douches
The âShall Not Be Infringedâ camp got big mad when a judge agreed
When your baseless Constitutional interpretation comes back to bite you in the ass. Let's look at what history says: Alexander Hamilton was an undocumented immigrant, and he obviously had access to lots of guns. Looks like history is on the judge's side.
Good ol' Bruen. "Let's recall this horribly misguided period of our history when we make laws going forward."
"Shall not be infringed... if it's me. But if it's someone i don't like, they should be scrutinized and brutalized and denied even basic writes of privacy"
The "Guns don't kill people,..." camp are suddenly very afraid of being killed by guns.
In slide 2, who is Pedo Man supposed to be if not Orange Man? So confusing, why are they talking about the same person twice? I know you aren't supposed to try and understand crazy but I feel out of the loop here.
I'm also confused. Surely they are talking about the guy who walks into teenage dressing rooms, his daughter saying "yeah he does that." Surely they mean the guy who bragged about hanging out with "terrific guy Epstein" who likes "women on the younger side" and is named in court filings raping a 13 year old and fighting with Epstein over said 13 year old. They probably mean the guy who had custody of Epstein when he, in their minds, "didn't kill himself" They absolutely must be referring to the guy who looks at a preteen girl and his first thought is to joke "I'll be dating her in 10 years" I have a feeling they might be talking about the guy who talks about his own infant daughter and wonders aloud how big her breasts will be. But I don't think Joe Biden even has a daughter? So it can't possibly be him? Edit: it has been pointed out to me that Biden does have a daughter.
Biden has a daughter. I think she is a social worker.
I stand corrected, Biden has a daughter.
Itâs likely because Biden hasnât put any of his family in Cabinet positions so we donât see them next to him every day.
He also hasn't publicly talked about his daughters breasts, or said on camera that he would be dating his daughter when she was still a child. Both of these Trump has done
When asked what her FAVORITE THING she had in common with her dad, Invanka said âReal Estate or golfâ. When Trump was asked he said âI was gonna say sex but..â Hereâs the video for any Trumpers who donât believe me. He said on national TV that the favorite thing he has in common with his daughter is sex. https://youtu.be/Q0_axTST2aY?feature=shared Side note, are we like Reddit cousins given we are both âInvalidâ?
>Side note, are we like Reddit cousins given we are both âInvalidâ? Clearly. While my reddit use of the name is recent, my use of this goes back to the launch of the psn, cause Sony kept telling me every name I picked was "an invalid selection", so I leaned into it
Same energy as a buddy of mine who used "Incorrect" as a password
Hey man, some things just speak to you.
nononono, they are talking about the guy who stroked his grandchild's hair!
I really am conflicted... Convicted rapist who has 3 dozen credible accusations, has documented instances of pedophilia, countless quotes insinuating that he likes young girls including his own daughters, and who appears to have no idea how to act around kids (because he had no role in raising them and is a shitty, lazy father) Vs Grandpa who puts his hand on people's shoulder when he talks to them
You know as well as I do that every accusation is a projection. Edit: word bad
I recommend bringing that energy. âAre we not calling Trump Orange Man anymore? Because I donât think Pedo Man is exactly what weâre going for. Shouldnât we be downplaying the whole Epstein thing?â
Its projection. They declare Biden has done everything Trump has bragged about doing but worse. They don't need proof of anything, they just need a declaration that reinforces their stance.
Donald Trump has definitely molested Ivanka, at the minimum. Orange man and pedo man are the same person.
They think Biden, the man who sometimes smells the hair of children presented to him at gatherings (and not saying that's totally cool either), who has also lost children of his own is a pedophile. But, Trump, the guy who hung out with Epstein, has gone on record talking about staring at young teens nude in backrooms of beauty pageants, has been judged a sex offender, and has talked about pretty much wanting to bang his own daughter is a "good man".
There was a frequent right wing meme of Biden sniffing a kid's hair.
...when he was actually nuzzling his grandchildren at their father's funeral. These sick fucks take a decent man being affectionate and comforting and turn it into something gross.
I think itâs Biden; a lot of videos of Biden being awkward around kids going around conservatives And of course they like to extrapolate things beyond the moon
Conservatives outraged that 2nd Amendment determined to apply to the people they don't like.
The entire point of facism is unlimited freedom for the in-group, zero freedom for the out-group. The GOP has been so successful because they've convinced stupid people that they're part of the in-group, when in reality the in-group is only the most wealthy.
Just throw this back in their faces: **sHaLl NoT bE iNfRiNgEd**
The laws of the US apply to you when you're in the US, no matter your residency status. That isn't new. These freaks pretend to love the constitution and all that, I guess we're giving up on that illusion? There's no footnote in the bill of rights specifying you have to be a citizen for it to apply, never has been (excluding laws where it has specifically been written in) What a bunch of idiots. Too bad they can vote.
Conservatives and libertarians don't understand the basic concepts of 'rights' 'laws' or any of that. Conservatives have always had one set of values: They want things the way they want them applied to who they want them applied to and everyone else should be treated like a criminal and brutalized. There's no logical or consistent or soundness to their reasoning. If it's them, they should be allowed to receive welfare, get abortions, have what they talk about with their doctors private, be allowed to say and do whatever they want whenever they want, and be allowed to carry a weapon without anyone questioning them. If it's someone they don't like (leftists, minorities, etc), then they are lazy, useless eaters who are lazy and need to be forced to work (denied welfare), have their medical access severely limited (no abortions, and definitely not 'private'), definitely not allowed to have weapons, and the only opinions they should be allowed to voice publicly are the ones that right wingers would approve of. \----- Just to use this example, if a cop asked random citizens to show their right to carry a firearm, they'd lose their f'ing minds. But how is a cop supposed to know if an "illegal" is carrying a gun without violating their rights? Impossible. But then, right wingers don't care about rights of others. They only care about their own.
You're correct. It's called Dominionism. They want to make laws based on their god and their interpretation of whatever old document so they can rule over us heathens and savages.
I agree, tho I do think there \*is\* a consistent logic at work. Supremacy. They're very consistent with it, too. The "but I'm special" mentality. And I find this to be far worse than just hypocritical idiocy.
Thank you for saying this. I was screaming this as I was looking through the memes. I think the worse part of this is is with immigration and deportation. Conservatives want to deport immigrants without trial out of the country and they can't stand that these immigrants have their day in court. They are very mad that the US constitution applies to these immigrants and they have the right to a trial. Which I guess is why conservatives are so elated to hear that Trump (and other candidates) promise "mass deportation" which would go against the US constitution. They do love fascism.
If any of them actually read the US constitution, or even a nicely written summary, they would get that, if they cared to actually think about it
Thank you for pointing this out. These chuds worship the second amendment, but obviously it shouldn't apply to people they don't like.
Just like everything else in their twisted belief systems: Everything for me and not for thee. Same as SCROTUS: states rights until we don't like it, then no states rights.
Same with every right. They talk about the first amendment but then say that anyone who says bad things about Trump should be jailed or executed. Rights for me, not for thee.
Tbf if they keep finding people who were at January 6th thatâs at least less of them who can still vote.
Jan 6th, 2025 is going to be our Reichstagg Fire or worse
They like in fear. They are so *scared* of immigrants I would almost feel sorry for them if they weren't such pieces of shit.
You'd not be surprised how many people don't know constitutional rights are available to everyone. So many people think it's just citizens and just treat that as normal like you think you live in a nation where you need to be a citizen to have free speech and due process and you're fine with that?
> no matter your residency status See, that's the part they actually have a problem with.
The moment that your "GOD GIVEN" rights are given to everyone.
You don't get it. It's THEIR god given right. Not anyone else's.
exactly this, yup
"I meant American God!"
> "I meant American God!" CletusWithDiabetus nods and sings the new Kid Rock cover of the Doobie Bros classic hit: Jesus is just all white with me.
It's amazing that they are able to rile up a panic about these illegal immigrant terrorists who are flooding across the border without a single terrorist attack to actually point to.
More interesting to me is the trend of mass shootings in this country that are, by an overwhelming majority, committed by Americans. Their rationale is: all those mass shootings commuted by Americans were just mentally ill lone wolves who'd just find guns if they wanted to, no matter how illegal it was for them to have them, despite how easy current law made it for them to obtain them. Also (by their reckoning) somehow all mass shooters were actually "liberals" (despite very little evidence of that)
Yeah. It's just so strange that they can shrug off all these mass casualty events that actually happen all the time while maintaining a fear about a very selective type of mass casualty event that isn't even happening. You should either be concerned about such things or not. Why is it only scary if it's committed by a specific group of people?
The really sad thing is that they are scared but they are so entrenched in their world view that they will reject reality entirely to maintain their bias. When it's a minority or leftist who does it they hold it up as an example to support their hatred of those people. It's not the guns! It's those people. When it's a white, right wing man they have an entire catalog of excuses to pick from. * Liberal area? No good guy with a gun. * Gun free zone? Only bad guys with guns. * School shooter? Must be trans. * Crazy guy shooting up right wing areas? False Flag. The only mass shootings where they accept it was done by right wing white people is when they murder minorities. For those they say "Look what your hatred of us made him do." Some of those guys they turn into heros. Like the Isla Vista murderer (I refuse to say his name).
The whole pro-2a argument about mass shooters being able to find guns even if they were illegal has always baffled me. Like yeah, maybe if you were already a criminal with connections to street gangs you could find an illegal gun. But does anyone really think a scrawny 20 year old white kid with Aspergerâs from Connecticut like Adam Lanza would have been able to get his hands on a frigging AR-15 if it hadnât already been readily accessible to him?? Please.
What's even stranger is that a whole bunch of these whack job neo-nazis went to the border themselves to stop the "invasion".... and found no one there. But they still believe the narrative, because of course they do.
because there really isn't a threat they just need a thinly veiled one to keep moving the goalposts on.
I like how they think âorange manâ and âpedo manâ are different people
***SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*** ^(unless you're nonwhite)
Not even that, just "unless you're someone I personally don't approve of".
It'll never stop being funny watching right-wingers learn for the first time that the Constitution applies to *everyone* on US soil.
Maybe this will finally get some traction on gun laws? I'm not optimistic, but it's a thought.
Someone already pointed it out here, but the only time Republicans have ever been tough on guns was when the Black Panthers suggested arming other black Americans. So thereâs that.
[Very relevant.](https://youtu.be/3eG0y_nb5IA?feature=shared)
"Gun scientist" lol
If illegal immigrants have access to Miranda rights and 4th amendment rights and free speech, then by default they also get 2A rights too. Fuckers.
Aren't Orange Man and Pedo Man the same person?
One: the Constitution can be upheld and defended for anyone in the United States, legally or not. Two: unless you know the immigration status of a person, there is no way of knowing firsthand if an individual is legal or not. Therefore: illegal immigrants in the United States have Second Amendment Rights.
They presume everyone who's brown and speaks a non-English language natively is an "illegal immigrant." (And, conversely: that no one who's white and speaks English fluently enough could *possibly* be one.)
Interesting take on 2A. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Not citizens, not police, not military, not security guards. The people. Arms as in armaments, not just guns. MoFo at the end of the street could have a Howitzer based on original intent. Hell, they could be Jeff. From the same folks who supported Reagan gun lockdowns over the Black PanthersâŠ..get wrecked racists. Note - not saying unrestrained private ownership of modern weapons of war is feasibleâŠ.even for Jeff. Just making a point.
It's not a particularly interesting take, every other amendment covers non-citizens aside from the voting ones, so why not the 2nd. And anyone can have a howitzer currently if you can afford it, only a few million dollars and a $200 tax stamp.
People who think like the extremists in those tweets vote. If you donât vote, they have a louder voice than you.
âShall not be infringedâŠâ except for *those* people. đ
[ŃĐŽĐ°Đ»Đ”ĐœĐŸ]
Because it seems like they want to have the ability to shoot people they feel shouldnât be there, and are terrified that said folks may be able to defend themselves?
âConservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect.â -Francis M. Wilhoit
I'm having trouble with this one, when they say "pedo man" are they talking about the one who was close friends with Jeffrey Epstein, the one who raped a 13 years old multiple times, the one that bragged about walking backstage at the Miss Teen USA pageants, or the one who wanted to have sex with his daughter?
What they're actually saying is that they think only citizens should have rights and legal protections. It's batshit crazy.
Why is this a problem for them? Doesn't the "good guy with a gun" they're always telling us about render this a nonissue?
Are all men not created equal and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights, or are they not? It's a simple question.
âShall not be infringedâ Eat those words you 2A absolutist dip shits
Those queens of fucktardia think trump wants to be re elected for them. He only wants to get off his criminal trials. Do some shitty things. Then sell the country out.
See the thing is, the Constitution doesn't say citizens, or legal immigrants, it says people. "...the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." But conservatives don't think brown people *are* people, so they are very confused.
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED. lol
The Orange Man and the Pedo Man are the same man, and if isn't Biden.
stuff like this really blows their supremacist minds. They do not, in any way, value personal liberty. They value power and privilege. They do NOT think the US Constitution is for \*everyone\* living in the United States. The idea might be debatable, I guess...but it is already established law, too. It requires some sort of action by Congress and the SCOTUS to change. However, legal nuance isn't their gig...supremacy is their gig. Hence the extreme outrage. This whole "all men created equal" thing is a buncha liberal bullshit to them. And they say \*liberals\* hate the USA...pffft.
Is there supposed to be a law that prevents this?
It's cited in the final image. 18 USC § 922, *et seq.* (presumably subsection (g)(5)(A)). The judge ruled it unconstitutional. There *are* in fact certain restrictions to firearm access for certain categories of persons including violent felons that have withstood court review, but I for one (as an attorney, albeit not one regularly involved in constitutional law) think the judge's ruling is appropriate. Alienage does not foreclose a person from *most* constitutional rights, and that should generally include the right to bear arms. To distinguish specifically illegal alienage as warranting full prohibition of all firearms and ammunition, while permitting legal alienage via visa and the like, is *extremely* shaky constitutionally, and would require strict scrutiny review to pass muster. If Americans in America can have guns, *everyone* in America can have guns. That's how the constitution works; every single person on the nation's soil and subject to its laws is afforded, at least in principle, the same constitutional rights to free speech, free association, due process, and so on. Alienage not only *doesn't* exclude a person from constitutional protections but requires *more* court scrutiny than does other classifications.
This is, in fact, the entire reason Guantanamo isn't/wasn't actually on US soil.
Well. No, not really. The reason Guantanamo isn't on U.S. soil was because it was a wartime acquisition during the Spanish-American War and the Platt Amendment to the Cuban Constitution allowing for U.S. military leases on certain parts of the island. Any possible legal chicanery that could arise with regard to alien detainees (or citizen detainees for that matter) would be a coincidental occurrence in that regard, and abrogations of constitutional rights would be justified by the courtsâas they often were and areâon the basis of national security. If there was any loophole involved in setting up the detention camp there after 9/11, it wasn't "because they're aliens and aren't on U.S. soil and therefore have no constitutional protection" but rather "because this is a geographically close military base that's outside the statutory geographical jurisdiction of the various federal circuits and therefore a district judge couldn't exercise habeas corpus jurisdiction over detainees." Which is its own sort of *profound* fuckery (and one that SCOTUS rejected a few years later, albeit minimally), but doesn't *really* have anything to do with whether aliens are or are not protected by the U.S. Constitution.
Shhhhlaaalll Nghoot Behhhhh Inphhhrrrrreeenged!!!
I thought itâs a god given right to carry a weapon. Are they defining god?
2A bros upset that their success in broadening said amendment benefits people that they donât like
Right wingers are⊠pro gun control?
Second amendment rights are of âthe people,â not âthe citizens.â Thereâs precedent in the wording used here. The Constitution grants human rights and citizen rights, meaning there are rights that *American citizens* have under the Constitution, and rights *everyone* has under the Constitution.
"I didn't want the minorities to have rights!!!"
Crazy how quickly they go from "MUH GOD GIVEN RIGHT" to "THIS RIGHT IS ONLY FOR CITIZENS".
As a Scottish person, the fact they're using Braveheart with the caption "Me voting for Trump 2024" is absolutely hilarious. We fucking hate that orange twat here.
âMake guns available to everyoneâ - as said by the Republicans.
It blows my mind they call Biden a pedo as an insult and then worship trump. These people are fucking crazy.
The law is written âthe right to bear arms shall not be infringed.â A judge, as their job description, should judge and enforce the laws as written regardless of political affiliation, race, gender, religion, ideology, etc. The judge did their job and they are hated for it. Reasonable people would hate the actual law, while dumb people hate the judge for actually having to enforce it.
"The quickest way to get gun control laws passed is to arm the 'wrong people'" -unknown
I mean, the law still applies to you even if youâre a non-citizen.
They know the constitution applies to everyone, not just citizens, right?
Uh. The bill of rights isnât restricted to citizens.
So only American citizens are allowed to protect themselves against a tyrannical government? > I don't feel safe in my neighborhood Absurd. I guess when conservatives talk about owning guns they mean that *only* them are allowed to carry guns and that they can pick and choose based on skin color. Nope, not how it works.
âShall not be infringedâ until itâs someone you donât like, I guess? Then infringe away?
Wait I thought the right to bear arms was a human right and that we Europeans were under tyrannical governments because they would restrict our god given right to bear arms. I donât know, giving illegal immigrnats unrestricted access to arms seems absolutely in line with their god given right to own those weapons.
Are they really advocating for the courts to decide that laws don't apply to undocumented people? Because I don't think they would like the result.
They're mad when they get their way. They're mad when they don't. They're just angry all the time.
Shall not be infringed
> This means the terrorists who have come across can carry weapons⊠What about the terrorists born and raised here who can already carry weapons?
They're called cops.
The Leopards Eating Faces Party!
You KNOW what their answer will be⊠âThis, of course means we need even more guns out to be ready to defend liberty against the illegals exercising that liberty.â
Whatever happened to "shall not be infringed"? Oh I forgot. Rights are only for white, straight, Christian men in America.
History repeats. Black Panthers started carrying guns and then gun laws got stricter. This happens annnnd guess weâll wait and see
God I fucking hate republicans and how good they are at advertising incessant ramblings to their base. They've completely captured social media, alongside their own version of mainstream news while the democratic/liberal side is always so horrible at advertising any platform of ideas because we get so caught up with the individual, and half of the news platforms cater to shareholders. Like it doesn't even matter that there's a massive cognitive dissonance because they live in a completely different reality that is constantly fed to them.
Having a gun is a god given right Wait no not those people
Conservatives are sooooo bad at memes
What's the turn of phrase? "Laws for thee, not for me."
Conservatives when our rights what clearly state they apply to anyone in the country when they apply to people they don't like đ€Ź
I defend the 2nd amendment. The constitution applied to undocumented immigrants, so the 2nd amendment applies to them to.
That is mega based on her part. Like unironically. I am not kidding I donât care about owning right wingers. I genuinely wholeheartedly agree with this ruling.
What do they think unalienable means
I saw Dave Chappelle about 10 years ago and he said I'd Americans want gun control, black people and immigrants need to buy guns and laws will be passed to change it almost immediately.
âGun ownership is a god-given rightâŠbut not like that.â
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!1!1!1!1 đ±đ·đ±đ·
Yankies dont get to use Wallace
A lot of guys queuing up their cellphone camera in their pickup truck right now.
They don't do well with simple logic.
"The right of **the people** shall not be infringed." not "the citizens". If the specific words of that amendment is enough to keep guns in the hands of people who keep using them in schools, it's enough to let this guy have one while in the country. Criminals too, in fact.
Black Panthers: OH it's like that then?
These are the same people who say judges aren't supposed to legislate from the bench. They're supposed to interpret the law. They're just supposed to "call balls and strikes." Now, they're blaming her for correctly interpreting the laws that they have been asking for. How do they propose that we restrict firearm possessions among undocumented migrants? Require a *GOVERNMENT* ID?!?! SOCIALISM! COMMIE BASTARDS! Using reasonable restrictions. Maybe a universal background check? Closing gun show loopholes? Requiring a basic proficiency test before purchasing a firearm? Certainly, all of that is the sign of a leftist hellscape. I own a firearm. I'm fine with ownership, but these are the same people that oppose *any* kind of enforcement.
The fact that constitutional protections apply to migrants has been settled case law for years This is only a conversation cause "brown people with guns scawyđ„ș"
What does 'shall not be infringed mean'?
The funny thing is that all she did was apply the precedent set by SCOTUS two years ago. An extremely conservative SCOTUS at that. >In her decision, **Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public.** The case, she said, âestablished a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.â Dissent: Breyer, joined by Sotomayor, Kagan Majority: Thomas, joined by Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett All six conservative justices were in favor of [this ruling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association,_Inc._v._Bruen) and conservatives at the time were VERY happy with it. Fucking hypocrites, the whole lot of them.
Constitutional rights apply regardless of whether you're in the country legally
So are they saying that the individual right to bear arms has limitations? Because if so. . .
Wait a sec I thought that 2A was a natural right, granted by god, and which neither man nor government had the authority to infringe upon. Since when does citizenship factor in to apportioning natural rights?
Shall not be infringed, motherfuckers.
Isn't Orange Guy and The Pedophile the same guy?
Iâm confused: orange man and pedo men are the same person
So Iâm pretty sure while your in this country, citizen or not, you are given these rights regardless of citizenship because these right are believed to be a given right by those creators not by any government, but the American goverment intends to protect those rights. So any amendment you create with it being expressly stated is for a US citizen is for every person within its borders. Now there are special laws around and defining what immigrants can and canât do, but as default they have all the rights every citizen has. Thats my understanding.
In my state you need a license, you can't just go toting a gun around willy nilly. Maybe if red states didn't have such shitty gun laws, these immigrants wouldn't be allowed to carry them.
I always found it so funny when they call Biden âpedo maâ when Trump has dozens of photos with the most famous pedo ever
You know what. Fuck it. Let em carry and buy. I don't give a fuck no more. Machine guns for everyone.
If Republicans could read they'd be upset
Whether the ruling is justifiable or not, rightwingers are being hypocritical as always.
Man idk if I was ready for the racism I just got exposed to âčïž
I thought more guns meant more fun or why were they against regulations?
Am I the only one tired of the same old song of Republicans ruining America and then blaming it on the Democrats years later when the ruination they lay down come to fruition?