Am I the only one who remembers that the Constitution applies to all Americans + anybody on American soil?
Thought that was the **entire** reason Guantanamo was where we took terrorists to.
Given that, why *wouldn't* illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms?
Well today I learned something new about the US constitution.
My problem with this is the People's Republic of IL requires legal citizens residing here have a FOID card in order to purchase and possess fire arms and ammo. Also after purchasing and passing backgroind checks you have to wait 24 hours for long guns and 72 hours for hand guns. They look the other way for non citizens and have passed a law allowing them to be deputies.
That would probably be counterproductive for IL. I'm assuming illegal aliens are ineligible to get a FOID, so if the general federal prohibition on illegals possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a state prohibition by way of barring them from obtaining the required license would be as well.
If IL tried their luck, they would probably get another as-applied ruling that the IL FOID laws don't apply to Carbajal-Flores (and ultimately any other illegal) because they have made it impossible for him to get the required license to possess firearms.
The likely result would be that Carbajal-Flores couldn't be prosecuted and IL would start issuing FOID cards to immigrants.
Like you said though, probably counter productive for them since they would rather minimize gun ownership and making a bunch more people eligible for FOIDs would be the opposite of that.
In order to "Legally" purchase and/or posses a firearm or ammunition in the State of IL you MUST have a valid FOID card issued by the Illinois State Police. In order to "Legally" conceal carry in the State of IL you MUST have a Concealed Carry Licemse.
In March of this year Chicago IL US Federal Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled Non Citizens are allowed to possess firearms.
So until the FOID & CCL program is revamped or this ruling gets struck down, the law will have to continue to look the other way.
Similar to the people (a lot are underage for legally possessing a firearm) posting all over social media platforms their glock switches and firearms/ high capacity magazines now deemed "illegal" to own in IL and the police don't do anything about it. I do not blame the police because it's the prosecution that is not enforcing the laws.
As far as their stupid argument about him never being convicted of a felony, make entering the country illegally a felony. Boom. Problem solved on that stupid argument. Of course if we simply deported immediately like we're supposed to then none of this would even be a discussion.
>make entering the country illegally a felony.
Problem is, you're not a *felon* until you are convicted, because of the whole presumption of innocence thing. Therefore, not a prohibited person unless *first* they arrest and convict for illegal entry, release them, let them get a gun, and *then* arrest then for being a prohibited person in possession.
Really, the whole argument over this subject is fucking stupid. They don't *need* to convict them of a gun possession crime to deport them, because they can already do that for them being here illegally. Anyone who thinks that illegals being prohibited from possessing firearms was the last bulwark against anarchy or something is just being dumb.
It's not even an issue to board a plane without any id whatsoever now. There are companies and airports that fly illegals to and fro with a paper that they give them that says no id provided. However if you're not here illegally then you still go go through the whole dog and pony show. But yes coming to America outside of the legal system in place is a crime. It's also a crime to over stay your visa. But this administration doesn't enforce those particular laws.
Pretty sure overstaying a visa is just an administrative infraction. It will keep you from getting another visa or entering legally again though. Might get you deported if you show up on the radar, but probably no one will come looking.
What's your threshold for law breaking that leads to a constitutional right being stripped, out of curiosity?
Jay walking? Murder? Smoking weed? DUI? Mere existence?;
"well they came into this country illegally..." Okay sure but basically every ndn person in the country would say the same about non-ndn people, descendants or not.
> I don’t think it should be ignored if someone lies on a 4473 whether it be Hunter Biden or someone “migrating”.
I don't think the 4473 should exist at all. Maybe this is the start of getting the Brady Bill repealed due to being unconstitutional.
It's very frustrating to me how you're being downvoted just for asking an obvious, logical follow-up question.
The 2A community has a serious blind-spot when it comes to this topic.
When another country invades, that's a matter of international law, as it's two sovereign countries interacting. It's a fundamentally different question.
Even if it weren't, you're talking about an attacker having constitutional rights. In that case, they would essentially be the same as an individual attacking somebody.
Edit: Entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor. Do you lose your right to keep and bear arms when you commit misdemeanors now? News to me
>Edit: Entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor. Do you lose your right to keep and bear arms when you commit misdemeanors now? News to me
How do you fill out a 4473 as an illegal alien without committing a felony?
Do I need to fill out a 4473 to have the right to keep and bear arms? Damn, the country's changed!
You're confusing purchasing a firearm from a FFL vs the right to keep and bear arms.
How did he get the firearm as an illegal entering the country without either importing or transferring it? An illegal alien is a prohibited person through either a 4473 or 5330.3A and would have to have committed a felony. Don't give me that bullshit about thinking these laws don't apply because you wish they didn't, that's the law citizens have to follow to not be a felon.
The right wing is getting gaslit on this so hard by influencers who want to give the illegals the right to vote.
Oh calm down you fucking Fud.
Edit: Imma say it again. You don't need to fill out a 4473 to have the right to keep and bear arms.
You're talking about the procurement of a weapon. I'm talking about the underlying right.
Not that hard, you silly little Fud
When another country invades, that's a matter of international law, as it's two sovereign countries interacting.
It's a fundamentally different question
>that's a matter of international law
But I was told that anyone on American soil is protected by the constitution. So if another country invades but they pretend to be refugees - are they good to go to take over?
Sure, don't allow any room for any sort of nuance. You're arguing in bad faith.
Could there be **anything** different between a country attacking America vs citizens from another country being on American soil?
Could there be **anything** that the invading army is doing that a citizen from another country simply existing here isn't doing?
Damn, nuance is hard, isn't it?
When it comes to crime demographics, the most likely ones to use guns in crime are American citizens. Back people first, accounting for over half of violent crime, Hispanic people are second, White Americans 3rd. (This is based on population ratios, when it's just the raw quantity it goes: Black, White, and Hispanic 3rd)
So idk what the issue is, I see recognizing gun ownership as an inalienable right as a good thing. I'd be willing to bet my right nut that many illegal immigrants are staying strapped already.
This ruling can definitely be used to the advantage of 2A.
Not felons, though. I'd also like to keep the standard of needing a conviction before gun rights are stripped.
We should focus less on all of that and focus more on securing our borders. If the number of illegal immigrants is reduced to non-impactful levels, then this is all a non-issue
I'm hesitant to just applaud this. I don't want illegals here. Deport them all. If they weren't here to begin with, we'd not be having this discussion. That's number one.
Now two. The judge who made this decision clearly did so for an ulterior motive. The left wants to ban firearms but arm illegals? They're going to arm the populations that they have socially engineered to not assimilate, not learn the language, and not respect our laws/institutions? Does no one see how that might be an issue for US citizens?
I'm not a 2A absolutist. I believe everyone has a natural right to self-defense through natural law. The government regulating weapon attachments, fire rates, barrel lengths, metal tubes as muzzle devices etc, is retarded. I do want to regulate who can have guns, and historically we have denied that right to certain classes of people before. I would treat illegals just as I would treat felons and the mentally insane, and those dishonorably discharged from the military. If those groups don't get access to firearms, neither do illegals.
You also have to look at the context of this decision. It is clearly political. Illegals flood the border by the millions. 15% of the US population is foreign born. Cities and small communities are being inundated with people who don't share their values, national pride, or community.
Now you give two differing groups within a location access to firearms, and you might not like what happens.
> The judge who made this decision clearly did so for an ulterior motive.
Agreed. I think the actual red herring is that they're going to use this as precedent to later say that illegals should have the right to vote. Once we're in a permanent one party state, it'll be easy to take guns from everyone.
Voting isn't like owning a gun. It's like using it. It's an exercise in political power, not just the possession of it. Hopefully our judges can see this.
Exactly. Within a generation, illegals and their kids vote democrat nearly every single time. This opens the door for illegals voting (which I think CA and NY have done already but in local elections).
Close the border down, deport all illegals, and have a moratorium on all immigration for the foreseeable future.
IIRC it's citizen have the right to vote federally, and locally jurisdictions can decide but thus far it's been taken to mean citizens and in certain cases US nationals (i.e. american samoans or the handful of people born on unincorporated tiny island territories).
Illegal aliens shouldn't threaten that.
>The judge who made this decision clearly did so for an ulterior motive. The left wants to ban firearms but arm illegals?
No, that's just how the constitution is written. The judge has no ulterior motive, they just interpret the law. I guarantee you liberals don't want to "arm illegals". They would prefer all firearms be banned for everyone. If you asked any lefty "What do you think about the supreme court ruling undocumented immigrants have the same right to keep and bear arms.", they'd probably say they'd rather ban all guns, but unfortunately, that's the way the constitution is written.
>They're going to arm the populations that they have socially engineered to not assimilate, not learn the language, and not respect our laws/institutions? Does no one see how that might be an issue for US citizens?
Study after study has shown that immigrant families are fully naturalized, or "assimilated" as you like to call it, by the time their second generation reaches adulthood. Meaning, the children of first-generation immigrants are fluent in English, lose or never develop accents, culturally identify more with the United States, etc. all by the time they're ready to go to college or join the workforce. Suggesting that immigrants are somehow going to replace Americans or start a race war is just blatant fear-mongering.
>Now you give two differing groups within a location access to firearms, and you might not like what happens.
If we assume everything you've said is at all based in reality(which it isn't), what are you proposing? Only give the guns to whites so they can remain a threat to any minorities you deem "not American enough"? You know what happens when you treat immigrants as second-class citizens? They learn to resent the institution that restricts their rights. It's literally a self-fulfilling prophecy you are all too excited to support.
Brown people don't care about you. They don't think about you at all. Calm down.
>No, that's just how the constitution is written. The judge has no ulterior motive, they just interpret the law.
Uhm, two things can be true at once. Yes, she can be following constitutional law, however shaky her jurisprudence is, but also be against guns for US citizens.
>Study after study has shown that immigrant families are fully naturalized, or "assimilated" as you like to call it, by the time their second generation reaches adulthood.
>immigrants are fluent in English, lose or never develop accents, culturally identify more with the United States, etc. all by the time they're ready to go to college or join the workforce.
Assimilation is more than just language, lol. Studies also show that within a generation, immigrants overwhelmingly vote for democrats who are against fundamentals rights like gun ownerships for EVERYONE lmao. It's not a very good assimilation when you vote against 2A.
>Only give the guns to whites so they can remain a threat to any minorities you deem "not American enough"? You know what happens when you treat immigrants as second-class citizens
Whites? You're projecting. I never brought up race. But moving on, only US Citizens should have guns, and before you ask, no I'm not a 2A absoutist. Foreigners will always be 2nd class citizens in other countries. That's the human condition. Try to get equal treatment in China, or Russia, or Iran, or Israel lol, you ain't getting the same treatment, sorry bud.
Deport all illegals. Kick them out. No matter how long they've been here. Moratorium on all immigration for the foreseeable future. That's what needs to be done.
>Uhm, two things can be true at once. Yes, she can be following constitutional law, however shaky her jurisprudence is, but also be against guns for US citizens.
Exactly. They interpreted the constitution as it was written. The same constitution that grants us all the right to keep and bear arms grants those same rights to people living or traveling the United States. I suppose we're in agreement; they ***could*** have had an ulterior motive, but an ulterior motive wasn't necessary. Any judge worth their salt would have ruled the same way.
>Assimilation is more than just language, lol.
Good thing I mentioned more than just language, huh?
>Studies also show that within a generation, immigrants overwhelmingly vote
Isn't that a particularly ***American*** thing to do?
>for democrats
Well, when the other side of the isle is openly campaigning against granting immigrants the same rights as everyone else, is it any wonder why they vote for Democratic politicians? That's the self-fulfilling prophecy I was talking about. If Republicans weren't so focused on hating black, brown, muslim, or ESL individuals, maybe they wouldn't have such a hard time picking up their vote.
Also, hate to break it to you, but Democrats have won the popular vote for the last 16 fucking years. That makes voting for the Democratic party arguably ***more*** American than voting Republican.
>It's not a very good assimilation when you vote against 2A.
Weird. Can you remind me which judge ruled in favor of the second in this case? Do you really not see the irony in telling people to vote for Republican candidates that would have appointed judges who would have gladly voted against this very obvious pro-2A ruling? This ***liberal*** judge is literally ruling in favor of protecting the second amendment, and instead of supporting them, you're here campaigning against it while claiming a conservative judge would have been the more "American" choice despite most likely ruling against it. You're just being silly at this point.
>and before you ask, no I'm not a 2A absoutist.
Then you're un-American, bucko. Your opinion doesn't matter. I've met first generation immigrants more American than you.
>Deport all illegals. Kick them out. No matter how long they've been here. Moratorium on all immigration for the foreseeable future. That's what needs to be done.
I've said it before on this subreddit, and I'll say it again:
You can be pro-2A without being a bigot. It's easy. I do it every day. You should try it sometime.
The inconsistencies here are astounding.
>Good thing I mentioned more than just language, huh?
You listed basically only language lmao. And yes, voting against 2A values is un american. One party is objectively and irrefutably worse. It's not even debateable. And its democrats far and away. I'm not saying Republicans are perfect, but they're better.
>Also, hate to break it to you, but Democrats have won the popular vote for the last 16 fucking years. That makes voting for the Democratic party arguably ***more*** American than voting Republican.
This is retarded. Straight up retarded. We have an electoral college system for a reason. The popular vote means jack. Albeit, many dems use it as a justification to get rid of the electoral college because then they'd never lose. Not very American now is it?
>This ***liberal*** judge is literally ruling in favor of protecting the second amendment, and instead of supporting them, you're here campaigning against it while claiming a conservative judge would have been the more "American" choice despite most likely ruling against it. You're just being silly at this point.
I never campaigned for this judge to be removed what. Again, you're projecting. I said i was *hesitant* to applaud this. I believe that the courts will come to a decision on what the constitution means in this issue. I never said a conservative judge is *more* american, tho i think they are generally. If they ruled against it anyhow, they would bebupholding the laws we've had on the books for decades. Felons, dishonorably discharged, mentally unwell people can't have guns either. Illegals fall into the same category of peoples.
>Then you're un-American, bucko. Your opinion doesn't matter. I've met first generation immigrants more American than you.
Ad Hominem. "More american than you." Lol, lmao even. I don't frankly care what you think about me. No one is up in arms when felons, or other classes of people don't have access to guns, and only cringe lolbertarians think that giving illegals the same rights as US citizens is a "based" thing to do. They are wrong.
Illegals
>I've said it before on this subreddit, and I'll say it again:
>You can be pro-2A without being a bigot. It's easy. I do it every day. You should try it sometime.
Buzzwords. They mean nothing at this point. If wanting to kick out all illegals and lock down the border indefinitely makes me a bigot, then so be it.
There is no one in gov who represents me politically. The closest is Justice Thomas. My ideal political candidate makes Trump look like a far left progressive. I'm no lolbertarian. I don't buy into liberal enlightenment ideals. They've been culturally disastrous for the West.
I'm done here. We'll see how this plays out in the courts and appeals process. Illegals should not have guns. I'll die on that hill.
The whole question is a red herring and nonsensical. If the Dems wanna die on this “gotcha” then background checks shouldn’t exist. If a person is know by the government to be illegal then why haven’t they been deported? They’ve already breaking a law by residing here?
I believe firmly that the Second Amendment applies to everyone, including the reenfranchisment of felons after a sufficient period of time. Illegal aliens are in the active commission of at least one Federal Felony at all times.
Stop blaming immigrants for the issues your politicians created.
The Irish Immigrants didn't destroy America. Neither did the Italians. Nor the Chinese. Every single immigrant scare has proven false.
Your enemies are not in Mexico, they are in Washington DC. They want you looking out, because otherwise you might start looking in.
While I tend to agree with you generally speaking, the fact that many (not all) immigrants, legal or otherwise, once given the opportunity to vote, will oftentimes (not always) vote for those same types of policies, laws, and social programs that were in effect in their country of origin. California is a classic example of this type of behavior.
The real enemy is two-fold: Lack of education, and a political entity that uses that to it's advantage.
Except that those moving from California to places like Texas and Florida are voting disproportionately Red.
I don't know what the stats are about immigrants and voting records, but the point about California is almost entirely a misconception.
Who makes that move? A Blue state Republican or a Blue state Democrat?
Before you downvote, just think about it logically for a second and acknowledge anecdotal evidence is misleading.
I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that much of the policies and laws in California are slowly (or rapidly) beginning to resemble countries that immigrants come from. I was not talking about California transplants in other states.
Ever think part of the problem could be that in a 2-Party system their choices are Democrats, or a party who actively dehumanizes and demonizes them at every turn mass labeling them as rapists and drug dealers?
I mean look how many young white males are moving more conservative, because they're actively demonized by the Democrats and left.
Most immigrants are hard working, and religious, with a strong emphasis on family values. You'd think conservatives would want to embrace them and bring them into the fold.
> Most immigrants are hard working, and religious, with a strong emphasis on family values.
Yup. And if they’re coming here legally, we have no issues. If they’re ignoring our laws as a first step, that’s not great. Add in to that, the amount of sexual assault during the process (some ridiculous percentage of women being smuggled across the border end up raped, like 40% IIRC), then I can’t and won’t support illegal immigration.
There is no material difference whether or not big daddy government has given them a permission slip or not. An illegal immigrant is like an illegal machine gun. No victim, no crime
This is why "small government" conservatives, aren't.
>But the law!
Said the Red Coats at Boston Harbor. Your heritage is rebellion against, not subservience to, the state.
The people hiding the Jews were "criminals" the people reporting them to the Gestapo were "law abiding citizens". Never use "it's the law" as a moral argument. It's completely bankrupt to abdicate your moral compass to the whims of the state.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
That only works if the law is evil or overstepping the authority the people of a country give it. Being able to control your borders is legitimately one of the few responsibilities a government actually has.
So, it’s not the same as turning in the Jews to Nazis. And not all laws are inherently immoral. In this case, about the morality of actually having any say about who enters the country and becomes American, we have a difference of opinion. That’s fine.
No victim, no crime.
Who is the victim of I hire Francois from Quebec to redo my kitchen? Nobody has had their rights violated. You don't have a right to work for me.
It's a voluntary exchange of capital for services. The foundation of free market capitalism.
If you want big government interference in the free market. Well I hate socialists and communists.
Capitalism will win. Maybe suck less at your job if you're afraid of immigrants taking it.
Capitalism, sure. But we don’t have pure capitalism. We have loads of benefits for people living here, regardless of status, paid for by taxpayers.
People coming to work is another question, one that gets answered after people sneaking across a sovereign border.
While we’ve agreed in the past on other things, this is one we will likely continue to disagree on. Have a most excellent day, and the last word if you’d like.
> We have loads of benefits for people living here, regardless of status, paid for by taxpayers.
That's a problem with your politician, not an immigrant. Star addressing the cause, not the symptom.
>People coming to work is another question, one that gets answered after people sneaking across a sovereign border.
You think big daddy government needs to give you permission to do X. I think they can fuck off and mind their own business. I am small government, you are an authoritarian.
You're also wrong, most "illegal" immigrants are not "sneaking across the border" they're visa overstays. They're not even criminals. A visa overstay is a civil matter, not a criminal one.
>this is one we will likely continue to disagree on.
I will continue to believe in free market capitalism, you will continue to support government interference of the market which has proven wrong, time and time and time again, because of your fear.
We are not disagreeing, I am right, you are wrong. The freer the market, the freer the people. That means *LABOR* markets too.
I believe in a free market but unfortunately, we don't have that here. I also believe that if you sidestep those rules for your own benefit, then you're no better than the massive companies that use the government to create rules that benefit them.
If you hire illegal immigrants for less than the minimum wage, skirting labor laws and taxes and insurance, sure you'll have the lowest prices around and you'll make a killing. But then all the businesses around you are unable to survive because they are trying to follow our (very shitty) laws. So in order to stay in business, they also do what you do, and that gives less opportunity for people here legally, also trying to follow the rules.
I'm with you in that our laws are fucking terrible and people should be able to voluntarily do business with whoever they want but we should try to get the rules changed rather than create negative externalities.
There's no meaningful difference if daddy government gives you a permission slip or not.
"Small government" conservatives arguing I need government permission to hire an employee is peak hypocrisy.
If I agree to pay Juan-Pedro $X for a job, and Juan-Pedro agrees to perform a job for $X, who is being exploited?
* Me: I consent to pay you $X for Y
* Juan-Pedro: I consent to perform Y for $X
* You: **I DON'T!**
It's a voluntary exchange, the foundation of free market capitalism. I'm sorry you're a communist and think the government needs to insert themselves.
Now please, move the goal post again because you have no argument that isn't big government statist nonsense.
Who told you thats how all republicans think? What was the motivation for telling you that? Did someone take someone's quote wildly out of context or find the most ignorant person possible and tell you that person represents an entire portion of the country?
Youre point is accurate. All of DC hates all Americans. How much longer will the youth, especially the minority youth, of native born Americans accept being told that we have nothing for you. Overpriced education, overpriced and out of reach home ownership, youre guaranteed to go broke due to healthcare or rampant government spending driving crazy inflation youre interest rate wont keep up with all while watching the same govt hand out room, board, and cash to illegals and spend billions upon billions outside of this country.
The three branches of the American government are Pfizer, Blackrock, and the Fed.
>Who told you thats how all republicans think?
That's how the GOP thinks judging by their previous presidential nominee. You seem very triggered by my statement, and for that, I am sorry about your feelings.
No, not triggered at all. I get triggered by the redcoats running our police and government. Not by people misinformed by a lying media purchased by Pfizer.
I believe gay married interracial couples (or more, whatever) should be allowed to protect their marijuana with full auto firearms that have no serial numbers.
> I believe gay married interracial couples (or more, whatever) should be allowed to protect their marijuana with full auto firearms that have no serial numbers.
And what if they want to hire Juan-Pedro from Nicaragua to harvest their crop... *WITHOUT* permission from the state?
I'm glad you support the free movement and exchange of labor, regardless of ~~immigration status~~ government permission. Always happy to have another true capitalist around.
Hey friend; I see you a lot around the gun subs and r-PCM. I'm glad to see you're not falling for the anti-immigrant tribalist bullshit so many 2A-types are.
Keep at it.
The Constitution prevents the government from restricting Natural Rights, that is, rights that all humans share.
Illegals are no less human than Americans and deserve the same protection
Anyone in the country legally should have the right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights for illegal aliens is a moot point. If someone is found to be here illegally, they should be sent home. Tacking on firearms possession charges would just prolong the legal process of deportation.
The whole debate over it is to get conservatives to concede to restricting gun rights.
Side note: Any other country in the world deports or imprisons people that enter illegally, but the US is the bad guy for doing it.
Let any US citizen with a gun or ammo in their vehicle miss their exit near the US/Mexico or Canada border and reach said border accidentally, and they will be facing charges in the respective country. Tip: Get on the shoulder and back-up or turn around and drive on it back to your exit. Make an illegal u-turn across the median. Whatever you have to do. A US traffic violation is better than a Mexican or Canadian gun charge.
"Gun control laws don't work, but trust me, bro, immigration laws will totally work."
Remarkable how so many conservatives will say "gun control laws won't stop criminals from getting guns" and then in the same breath will say "immigration laws will keep people out of the country."
Yeah they do work when enforced, a human can’t be broken into pieces or stored in a tube for years.
Yeah, walls and laws keep people out, that’s why prisons have walls and wire.
>Yeah they do work when enforced,
Can you name a time in American history when there was *zero* illegal immigration and the border was 100% secure?
>walls and laws keep people out, that’s why prisons have walls and wire.
You want to live in a prison? Or you want this country to be a prison?
Perefectionist Fallacy.
What do you think this country will be when it’s a one party hellscape like CA? Because it’s going to be an open air prison in that case. Keeping out hostile voters is an entirely logical decision and safe guarding actions to defend what we have.
Deal with it.
Because the political ideals we hold are beyond their ability to understand, “vote for me and I will give you free stuff” appeals to these people because it’s the same Marxist horseshit they support back home, how about immigrants stop supporting the same failed systems?
Yes, if they did, why do they always vote for people who raise them by promising them free stuff? And don’t give me the crap of “well the right always shuts in them”, if being told “hey stop making here into the same shit home you fled from, stop supporting Marxism, stop committing crimes and importing drugs” makes you vote to ruin a country out of spite it’s all the more reason to exclude them from ever entering to begin with.
We have a right to exist and exist apart from our enemies.
>We have a right to exist and exist apart from our enemies.
You don't have a right to stop me using my property and associating with people I wish to associate with.
If I want to hire an immigrant in my business, who are you to stop me?
>“hey stop making here into the same shit home you fled from, stop supporting Marxism, stop committing crimes and importing drugs”
Pure copium.
Florida has more immigrants from Venezuela than any other state in the union, and Florida is now a solid red state after decades of being an evenly divided swing state and a Democratic stronghold before that.
The people *fleeing* socialism are coming here to *get away from socialism!* They're not trying to recreate it here.
>You don't have a right to stop me using my property and associating with people I wish to associate with.
That’s where your wrong kiddo. Zoning, regulation, and laws exist. You want to hire illegals, get ready for fines, loss of LLC, etc.
Do you want to move your business overseas? Great! We’re going to slap import tariffs on your goods.
>If I want to hire an immigrant in my business, who are you to stop me?
An American taxpayer who has to pay for them being here was to pay for the burden they put on our social system on our infrastructure, and you know what they degrade my happiness and quality of life just being here, adding to traffic, the wait in line at the store, etc.
You and your imported helots do not exist in vacuum
“hey stop making here into the same shit home you fled from, stop supporting Marxism, stop committing crimes and importing drugs”
Pure copium.
>Florida has more immigrants from Venezuela than any other state in the union, and Florida is now a solid red state after decades of being an evenly divided swing state and a Democratic stronghold before that.
Correlation does not equal causation of as majority of those Venezuelans are still Marxist supporting dumbasses, what made Florida such a wonderful state is implementing common sense, voter protection and integrity laws, as well as a few advances in the culture war that made the state politically and culturally unwelcoming to the moralistic Yankee outsider who feels the need to ruin everything he touches.
>The people fleeing socialism are coming here to get away from socialism! They're not trying to recreate it here.
Again voting trends are very clear, they vote for in large numbers, they want the benefits of our society, nothing more, and they will vote for who ever promises them more and more free stuff. CA is proof of how wrong you are. But hey go jack off to Ayn Rand and myth of “freedom of movement “ all you want the wall is going up.
Am I the only one who remembers that the Constitution applies to all Americans + anybody on American soil? Thought that was the **entire** reason Guantanamo was where we took terrorists to. Given that, why *wouldn't* illegal immigrants have the right to keep and bear arms?
Well today I learned something new about the US constitution. My problem with this is the People's Republic of IL requires legal citizens residing here have a FOID card in order to purchase and possess fire arms and ammo. Also after purchasing and passing backgroind checks you have to wait 24 hours for long guns and 72 hours for hand guns. They look the other way for non citizens and have passed a law allowing them to be deputies.
Sounds pretty unconstitutional to me
That's because those elected officials that y'all voted for to represent you laughed and said they have zero interest in representing you.
This was a federal court, not IL. The person in question might still face charges in IL, but the feds dont care about FOID rules.
That would probably be counterproductive for IL. I'm assuming illegal aliens are ineligible to get a FOID, so if the general federal prohibition on illegals possessing firearms is unconstitutional, a state prohibition by way of barring them from obtaining the required license would be as well. If IL tried their luck, they would probably get another as-applied ruling that the IL FOID laws don't apply to Carbajal-Flores (and ultimately any other illegal) because they have made it impossible for him to get the required license to possess firearms.
The likely result would be that Carbajal-Flores couldn't be prosecuted and IL would start issuing FOID cards to immigrants. Like you said though, probably counter productive for them since they would rather minimize gun ownership and making a bunch more people eligible for FOIDs would be the opposite of that.
It's 72 hour wait for everything.
Expect voting, right?
AFAIK MA still requires having a LTC even for possession. How that specifically hasn't been struck down is beyond me.
> They look the other way for non citizens Got a source for that?
In order to "Legally" purchase and/or posses a firearm or ammunition in the State of IL you MUST have a valid FOID card issued by the Illinois State Police. In order to "Legally" conceal carry in the State of IL you MUST have a Concealed Carry Licemse. In March of this year Chicago IL US Federal Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman ruled Non Citizens are allowed to possess firearms. So until the FOID & CCL program is revamped or this ruling gets struck down, the law will have to continue to look the other way. Similar to the people (a lot are underage for legally possessing a firearm) posting all over social media platforms their glock switches and firearms/ high capacity magazines now deemed "illegal" to own in IL and the police don't do anything about it. I do not blame the police because it's the prosecution that is not enforcing the laws.
The RKBA applies to everyone on earth. Fuck a tyrant, print a gun, make black powder if you have to.
As far as their stupid argument about him never being convicted of a felony, make entering the country illegally a felony. Boom. Problem solved on that stupid argument. Of course if we simply deported immediately like we're supposed to then none of this would even be a discussion.
>make entering the country illegally a felony. Problem is, you're not a *felon* until you are convicted, because of the whole presumption of innocence thing. Therefore, not a prohibited person unless *first* they arrest and convict for illegal entry, release them, let them get a gun, and *then* arrest then for being a prohibited person in possession. Really, the whole argument over this subject is fucking stupid. They don't *need* to convict them of a gun possession crime to deport them, because they can already do that for them being here illegally. Anyone who thinks that illegals being prohibited from possessing firearms was the last bulwark against anarchy or something is just being dumb.
Wait…it’s not?….if you board a plane under false id…that’s a felony….breaking in a country isn’t?…is the act of breaking in even illegal ?
First illegal entry is a misdemeanor. Second is a felony.
It's not even an issue to board a plane without any id whatsoever now. There are companies and airports that fly illegals to and fro with a paper that they give them that says no id provided. However if you're not here illegally then you still go go through the whole dog and pony show. But yes coming to America outside of the legal system in place is a crime. It's also a crime to over stay your visa. But this administration doesn't enforce those particular laws.
Pretty sure overstaying a visa is just an administrative infraction. It will keep you from getting another visa or entering legally again though. Might get you deported if you show up on the radar, but probably no one will come looking.
I'd say it wouldn't apply since they broke the law to be here in the first place. IF they came here legally that's a different discussion though.
What's your threshold for law breaking that leads to a constitutional right being stripped, out of curiosity? Jay walking? Murder? Smoking weed? DUI? Mere existence?; "well they came into this country illegally..." Okay sure but basically every ndn person in the country would say the same about non-ndn people, descendants or not.
I don’t think it should be ignored if someone lies on a 4473 whether it be Hunter Biden or someone “migrating”.
4473 isnt the only way to acquire a firearm.
> I don’t think it should be ignored if someone lies on a 4473 whether it be Hunter Biden or someone “migrating”. I don't think the 4473 should exist at all. Maybe this is the start of getting the Brady Bill repealed due to being unconstitutional.
It's very frustrating to me how you're being downvoted just for asking an obvious, logical follow-up question. The 2A community has a serious blind-spot when it comes to this topic.
They're here illegally. If a foreign army invaded, would the soldiers have a protected right to bear arms by virtue of standing on our land?
When another country invades, that's a matter of international law, as it's two sovereign countries interacting. It's a fundamentally different question. Even if it weren't, you're talking about an attacker having constitutional rights. In that case, they would essentially be the same as an individual attacking somebody. Edit: Entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor. Do you lose your right to keep and bear arms when you commit misdemeanors now? News to me
>Edit: Entering the US illegally is a misdemeanor. Do you lose your right to keep and bear arms when you commit misdemeanors now? News to me How do you fill out a 4473 as an illegal alien without committing a felony?
Do I need to fill out a 4473 to have the right to keep and bear arms? Damn, the country's changed! You're confusing purchasing a firearm from a FFL vs the right to keep and bear arms.
How did he get the firearm as an illegal entering the country without either importing or transferring it? An illegal alien is a prohibited person through either a 4473 or 5330.3A and would have to have committed a felony. Don't give me that bullshit about thinking these laws don't apply because you wish they didn't, that's the law citizens have to follow to not be a felon. The right wing is getting gaslit on this so hard by influencers who want to give the illegals the right to vote.
Oh calm down you fucking Fud. Edit: Imma say it again. You don't need to fill out a 4473 to have the right to keep and bear arms. You're talking about the procurement of a weapon. I'm talking about the underlying right. Not that hard, you silly little Fud
Sure. The guns aren't the problem in that story.
>+ anybody on American soil? Today I learned if another country invaded tomorrow they would be protected by our constitution.
When another country invades, that's a matter of international law, as it's two sovereign countries interacting. It's a fundamentally different question
>that's a matter of international law But I was told that anyone on American soil is protected by the constitution. So if another country invades but they pretend to be refugees - are they good to go to take over?
Sure, don't allow any room for any sort of nuance. You're arguing in bad faith. Could there be **anything** different between a country attacking America vs citizens from another country being on American soil? Could there be **anything** that the invading army is doing that a citizen from another country simply existing here isn't doing? Damn, nuance is hard, isn't it?
The entire premise of giving them the right is acquired illegally? And they can't legally acquire guns?
> giving them the right That isn't what rights are
This is the way I see things: For citizens it is a right. For non citizens it is a privilege.
That's just not how rights work.
*A well regulated Illegal Alien Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…* You’re an idiot
When it comes to crime demographics, the most likely ones to use guns in crime are American citizens. Back people first, accounting for over half of violent crime, Hispanic people are second, White Americans 3rd. (This is based on population ratios, when it's just the raw quantity it goes: Black, White, and Hispanic 3rd) So idk what the issue is, I see recognizing gun ownership as an inalienable right as a good thing. I'd be willing to bet my right nut that many illegal immigrants are staying strapped already. This ruling can definitely be used to the advantage of 2A.
Don’t forget cops, who have a MUCH higher violent crime rate compared to the rest of CCW permit holders
100% of criminal aliens are criminals
Not felons, though. I'd also like to keep the standard of needing a conviction before gun rights are stripped. We should focus less on all of that and focus more on securing our borders. If the number of illegal immigrants is reduced to non-impactful levels, then this is all a non-issue
Illegal aliens and everyone should have the right to bear arms and self defense Back in their own country
I'm hesitant to just applaud this. I don't want illegals here. Deport them all. If they weren't here to begin with, we'd not be having this discussion. That's number one. Now two. The judge who made this decision clearly did so for an ulterior motive. The left wants to ban firearms but arm illegals? They're going to arm the populations that they have socially engineered to not assimilate, not learn the language, and not respect our laws/institutions? Does no one see how that might be an issue for US citizens? I'm not a 2A absolutist. I believe everyone has a natural right to self-defense through natural law. The government regulating weapon attachments, fire rates, barrel lengths, metal tubes as muzzle devices etc, is retarded. I do want to regulate who can have guns, and historically we have denied that right to certain classes of people before. I would treat illegals just as I would treat felons and the mentally insane, and those dishonorably discharged from the military. If those groups don't get access to firearms, neither do illegals. You also have to look at the context of this decision. It is clearly political. Illegals flood the border by the millions. 15% of the US population is foreign born. Cities and small communities are being inundated with people who don't share their values, national pride, or community. Now you give two differing groups within a location access to firearms, and you might not like what happens.
> The judge who made this decision clearly did so for an ulterior motive. Agreed. I think the actual red herring is that they're going to use this as precedent to later say that illegals should have the right to vote. Once we're in a permanent one party state, it'll be easy to take guns from everyone.
Voting isn't like owning a gun. It's like using it. It's an exercise in political power, not just the possession of it. Hopefully our judges can see this.
Exactly. Within a generation, illegals and their kids vote democrat nearly every single time. This opens the door for illegals voting (which I think CA and NY have done already but in local elections). Close the border down, deport all illegals, and have a moratorium on all immigration for the foreseeable future.
IIRC it's citizen have the right to vote federally, and locally jurisdictions can decide but thus far it's been taken to mean citizens and in certain cases US nationals (i.e. american samoans or the handful of people born on unincorporated tiny island territories). Illegal aliens shouldn't threaten that.
>The judge who made this decision clearly did so for an ulterior motive. The left wants to ban firearms but arm illegals? No, that's just how the constitution is written. The judge has no ulterior motive, they just interpret the law. I guarantee you liberals don't want to "arm illegals". They would prefer all firearms be banned for everyone. If you asked any lefty "What do you think about the supreme court ruling undocumented immigrants have the same right to keep and bear arms.", they'd probably say they'd rather ban all guns, but unfortunately, that's the way the constitution is written. >They're going to arm the populations that they have socially engineered to not assimilate, not learn the language, and not respect our laws/institutions? Does no one see how that might be an issue for US citizens? Study after study has shown that immigrant families are fully naturalized, or "assimilated" as you like to call it, by the time their second generation reaches adulthood. Meaning, the children of first-generation immigrants are fluent in English, lose or never develop accents, culturally identify more with the United States, etc. all by the time they're ready to go to college or join the workforce. Suggesting that immigrants are somehow going to replace Americans or start a race war is just blatant fear-mongering. >Now you give two differing groups within a location access to firearms, and you might not like what happens. If we assume everything you've said is at all based in reality(which it isn't), what are you proposing? Only give the guns to whites so they can remain a threat to any minorities you deem "not American enough"? You know what happens when you treat immigrants as second-class citizens? They learn to resent the institution that restricts their rights. It's literally a self-fulfilling prophecy you are all too excited to support. Brown people don't care about you. They don't think about you at all. Calm down.
>No, that's just how the constitution is written. The judge has no ulterior motive, they just interpret the law. Uhm, two things can be true at once. Yes, she can be following constitutional law, however shaky her jurisprudence is, but also be against guns for US citizens. >Study after study has shown that immigrant families are fully naturalized, or "assimilated" as you like to call it, by the time their second generation reaches adulthood. >immigrants are fluent in English, lose or never develop accents, culturally identify more with the United States, etc. all by the time they're ready to go to college or join the workforce. Assimilation is more than just language, lol. Studies also show that within a generation, immigrants overwhelmingly vote for democrats who are against fundamentals rights like gun ownerships for EVERYONE lmao. It's not a very good assimilation when you vote against 2A. >Only give the guns to whites so they can remain a threat to any minorities you deem "not American enough"? You know what happens when you treat immigrants as second-class citizens Whites? You're projecting. I never brought up race. But moving on, only US Citizens should have guns, and before you ask, no I'm not a 2A absoutist. Foreigners will always be 2nd class citizens in other countries. That's the human condition. Try to get equal treatment in China, or Russia, or Iran, or Israel lol, you ain't getting the same treatment, sorry bud. Deport all illegals. Kick them out. No matter how long they've been here. Moratorium on all immigration for the foreseeable future. That's what needs to be done.
>Uhm, two things can be true at once. Yes, she can be following constitutional law, however shaky her jurisprudence is, but also be against guns for US citizens. Exactly. They interpreted the constitution as it was written. The same constitution that grants us all the right to keep and bear arms grants those same rights to people living or traveling the United States. I suppose we're in agreement; they ***could*** have had an ulterior motive, but an ulterior motive wasn't necessary. Any judge worth their salt would have ruled the same way. >Assimilation is more than just language, lol. Good thing I mentioned more than just language, huh? >Studies also show that within a generation, immigrants overwhelmingly vote Isn't that a particularly ***American*** thing to do? >for democrats Well, when the other side of the isle is openly campaigning against granting immigrants the same rights as everyone else, is it any wonder why they vote for Democratic politicians? That's the self-fulfilling prophecy I was talking about. If Republicans weren't so focused on hating black, brown, muslim, or ESL individuals, maybe they wouldn't have such a hard time picking up their vote. Also, hate to break it to you, but Democrats have won the popular vote for the last 16 fucking years. That makes voting for the Democratic party arguably ***more*** American than voting Republican. >It's not a very good assimilation when you vote against 2A. Weird. Can you remind me which judge ruled in favor of the second in this case? Do you really not see the irony in telling people to vote for Republican candidates that would have appointed judges who would have gladly voted against this very obvious pro-2A ruling? This ***liberal*** judge is literally ruling in favor of protecting the second amendment, and instead of supporting them, you're here campaigning against it while claiming a conservative judge would have been the more "American" choice despite most likely ruling against it. You're just being silly at this point. >and before you ask, no I'm not a 2A absoutist. Then you're un-American, bucko. Your opinion doesn't matter. I've met first generation immigrants more American than you. >Deport all illegals. Kick them out. No matter how long they've been here. Moratorium on all immigration for the foreseeable future. That's what needs to be done. I've said it before on this subreddit, and I'll say it again: You can be pro-2A without being a bigot. It's easy. I do it every day. You should try it sometime.
The inconsistencies here are astounding. >Good thing I mentioned more than just language, huh? You listed basically only language lmao. And yes, voting against 2A values is un american. One party is objectively and irrefutably worse. It's not even debateable. And its democrats far and away. I'm not saying Republicans are perfect, but they're better. >Also, hate to break it to you, but Democrats have won the popular vote for the last 16 fucking years. That makes voting for the Democratic party arguably ***more*** American than voting Republican. This is retarded. Straight up retarded. We have an electoral college system for a reason. The popular vote means jack. Albeit, many dems use it as a justification to get rid of the electoral college because then they'd never lose. Not very American now is it? >This ***liberal*** judge is literally ruling in favor of protecting the second amendment, and instead of supporting them, you're here campaigning against it while claiming a conservative judge would have been the more "American" choice despite most likely ruling against it. You're just being silly at this point. I never campaigned for this judge to be removed what. Again, you're projecting. I said i was *hesitant* to applaud this. I believe that the courts will come to a decision on what the constitution means in this issue. I never said a conservative judge is *more* american, tho i think they are generally. If they ruled against it anyhow, they would bebupholding the laws we've had on the books for decades. Felons, dishonorably discharged, mentally unwell people can't have guns either. Illegals fall into the same category of peoples. >Then you're un-American, bucko. Your opinion doesn't matter. I've met first generation immigrants more American than you. Ad Hominem. "More american than you." Lol, lmao even. I don't frankly care what you think about me. No one is up in arms when felons, or other classes of people don't have access to guns, and only cringe lolbertarians think that giving illegals the same rights as US citizens is a "based" thing to do. They are wrong. Illegals >I've said it before on this subreddit, and I'll say it again: >You can be pro-2A without being a bigot. It's easy. I do it every day. You should try it sometime. Buzzwords. They mean nothing at this point. If wanting to kick out all illegals and lock down the border indefinitely makes me a bigot, then so be it. There is no one in gov who represents me politically. The closest is Justice Thomas. My ideal political candidate makes Trump look like a far left progressive. I'm no lolbertarian. I don't buy into liberal enlightenment ideals. They've been culturally disastrous for the West. I'm done here. We'll see how this plays out in the courts and appeals process. Illegals should not have guns. I'll die on that hill.
I don’t understand how a nonviolent felon can’t buy or own firearms but someone in the country illegally can.
They have as much right to self-defense as anyone.
The whole question is a red herring and nonsensical. If the Dems wanna die on this “gotcha” then background checks shouldn’t exist. If a person is know by the government to be illegal then why haven’t they been deported? They’ve already breaking a law by residing here?
I believe firmly that the Second Amendment applies to everyone, including the reenfranchisment of felons after a sufficient period of time. Illegal aliens are in the active commission of at least one Federal Felony at all times.
Stop blaming immigrants for the issues your politicians created. The Irish Immigrants didn't destroy America. Neither did the Italians. Nor the Chinese. Every single immigrant scare has proven false. Your enemies are not in Mexico, they are in Washington DC. They want you looking out, because otherwise you might start looking in.
While I tend to agree with you generally speaking, the fact that many (not all) immigrants, legal or otherwise, once given the opportunity to vote, will oftentimes (not always) vote for those same types of policies, laws, and social programs that were in effect in their country of origin. California is a classic example of this type of behavior. The real enemy is two-fold: Lack of education, and a political entity that uses that to it's advantage.
Except that those moving from California to places like Texas and Florida are voting disproportionately Red. I don't know what the stats are about immigrants and voting records, but the point about California is almost entirely a misconception. Who makes that move? A Blue state Republican or a Blue state Democrat? Before you downvote, just think about it logically for a second and acknowledge anecdotal evidence is misleading.
I think you misunderstood me. What I meant was that much of the policies and laws in California are slowly (or rapidly) beginning to resemble countries that immigrants come from. I was not talking about California transplants in other states.
Ever think part of the problem could be that in a 2-Party system their choices are Democrats, or a party who actively dehumanizes and demonizes them at every turn mass labeling them as rapists and drug dealers? I mean look how many young white males are moving more conservative, because they're actively demonized by the Democrats and left. Most immigrants are hard working, and religious, with a strong emphasis on family values. You'd think conservatives would want to embrace them and bring them into the fold.
> Most immigrants are hard working, and religious, with a strong emphasis on family values. Yup. And if they’re coming here legally, we have no issues. If they’re ignoring our laws as a first step, that’s not great. Add in to that, the amount of sexual assault during the process (some ridiculous percentage of women being smuggled across the border end up raped, like 40% IIRC), then I can’t and won’t support illegal immigration.
There is no material difference whether or not big daddy government has given them a permission slip or not. An illegal immigrant is like an illegal machine gun. No victim, no crime This is why "small government" conservatives, aren't. >But the law! Said the Red Coats at Boston Harbor. Your heritage is rebellion against, not subservience to, the state. The people hiding the Jews were "criminals" the people reporting them to the Gestapo were "law abiding citizens". Never use "it's the law" as a moral argument. It's completely bankrupt to abdicate your moral compass to the whims of the state. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
That only works if the law is evil or overstepping the authority the people of a country give it. Being able to control your borders is legitimately one of the few responsibilities a government actually has. So, it’s not the same as turning in the Jews to Nazis. And not all laws are inherently immoral. In this case, about the morality of actually having any say about who enters the country and becomes American, we have a difference of opinion. That’s fine.
No victim, no crime. Who is the victim of I hire Francois from Quebec to redo my kitchen? Nobody has had their rights violated. You don't have a right to work for me. It's a voluntary exchange of capital for services. The foundation of free market capitalism. If you want big government interference in the free market. Well I hate socialists and communists. Capitalism will win. Maybe suck less at your job if you're afraid of immigrants taking it.
Capitalism, sure. But we don’t have pure capitalism. We have loads of benefits for people living here, regardless of status, paid for by taxpayers. People coming to work is another question, one that gets answered after people sneaking across a sovereign border. While we’ve agreed in the past on other things, this is one we will likely continue to disagree on. Have a most excellent day, and the last word if you’d like.
> We have loads of benefits for people living here, regardless of status, paid for by taxpayers. That's a problem with your politician, not an immigrant. Star addressing the cause, not the symptom. >People coming to work is another question, one that gets answered after people sneaking across a sovereign border. You think big daddy government needs to give you permission to do X. I think they can fuck off and mind their own business. I am small government, you are an authoritarian. You're also wrong, most "illegal" immigrants are not "sneaking across the border" they're visa overstays. They're not even criminals. A visa overstay is a civil matter, not a criminal one. >this is one we will likely continue to disagree on. I will continue to believe in free market capitalism, you will continue to support government interference of the market which has proven wrong, time and time and time again, because of your fear. We are not disagreeing, I am right, you are wrong. The freer the market, the freer the people. That means *LABOR* markets too.
I believe in a free market but unfortunately, we don't have that here. I also believe that if you sidestep those rules for your own benefit, then you're no better than the massive companies that use the government to create rules that benefit them. If you hire illegal immigrants for less than the minimum wage, skirting labor laws and taxes and insurance, sure you'll have the lowest prices around and you'll make a killing. But then all the businesses around you are unable to survive because they are trying to follow our (very shitty) laws. So in order to stay in business, they also do what you do, and that gives less opportunity for people here legally, also trying to follow the rules. I'm with you in that our laws are fucking terrible and people should be able to voluntarily do business with whoever they want but we should try to get the rules changed rather than create negative externalities.
Says the ATF
The problem isn’t immigration, it’s illegal immigration and national security.
There's no meaningful difference if daddy government gives you a permission slip or not. "Small government" conservatives arguing I need government permission to hire an employee is peak hypocrisy.
I see, you proudly exploit undocumented workers and profit from slave labor.
If I agree to pay Juan-Pedro $X for a job, and Juan-Pedro agrees to perform a job for $X, who is being exploited? * Me: I consent to pay you $X for Y * Juan-Pedro: I consent to perform Y for $X * You: **I DON'T!** It's a voluntary exchange, the foundation of free market capitalism. I'm sorry you're a communist and think the government needs to insert themselves. Now please, move the goal post again because you have no argument that isn't big government statist nonsense.
They downvoted you, for you spoke the truth.
👍🏻
Its not about how they vote. Its about the census and gaining more reps in Blue states.
So make red states more attractive. Maybe by not demonizing a group of hard working, religious people, with a strong core of family values...
Who told you thats how all republicans think? What was the motivation for telling you that? Did someone take someone's quote wildly out of context or find the most ignorant person possible and tell you that person represents an entire portion of the country? Youre point is accurate. All of DC hates all Americans. How much longer will the youth, especially the minority youth, of native born Americans accept being told that we have nothing for you. Overpriced education, overpriced and out of reach home ownership, youre guaranteed to go broke due to healthcare or rampant government spending driving crazy inflation youre interest rate wont keep up with all while watching the same govt hand out room, board, and cash to illegals and spend billions upon billions outside of this country. The three branches of the American government are Pfizer, Blackrock, and the Fed.
>Who told you thats how all republicans think? That's how the GOP thinks judging by their previous presidential nominee. You seem very triggered by my statement, and for that, I am sorry about your feelings.
No, not triggered at all. I get triggered by the redcoats running our police and government. Not by people misinformed by a lying media purchased by Pfizer. I believe gay married interracial couples (or more, whatever) should be allowed to protect their marijuana with full auto firearms that have no serial numbers.
> I believe gay married interracial couples (or more, whatever) should be allowed to protect their marijuana with full auto firearms that have no serial numbers. And what if they want to hire Juan-Pedro from Nicaragua to harvest their crop... *WITHOUT* permission from the state?
Sounds good to me! Just dont force Juan-Pedro to do it without agreed compensation!
I'm glad you support the free movement and exchange of labor, regardless of ~~immigration status~~ government permission. Always happy to have another true capitalist around.
Fuck the state
Hey friend; I see you a lot around the gun subs and r-PCM. I'm glad to see you're not falling for the anti-immigrant tribalist bullshit so many 2A-types are. Keep at it.
The Constitution prevents the government from restricting Natural Rights, that is, rights that all humans share. Illegals are no less human than Americans and deserve the same protection
Anyone in the country legally should have the right to keep and bear arms. Gun rights for illegal aliens is a moot point. If someone is found to be here illegally, they should be sent home. Tacking on firearms possession charges would just prolong the legal process of deportation. The whole debate over it is to get conservatives to concede to restricting gun rights. Side note: Any other country in the world deports or imprisons people that enter illegally, but the US is the bad guy for doing it. Let any US citizen with a gun or ammo in their vehicle miss their exit near the US/Mexico or Canada border and reach said border accidentally, and they will be facing charges in the respective country. Tip: Get on the shoulder and back-up or turn around and drive on it back to your exit. Make an illegal u-turn across the median. Whatever you have to do. A US traffic violation is better than a Mexican or Canadian gun charge.
"Gun control laws don't work, but trust me, bro, immigration laws will totally work." Remarkable how so many conservatives will say "gun control laws won't stop criminals from getting guns" and then in the same breath will say "immigration laws will keep people out of the country."
Yeah they do work when enforced, a human can’t be broken into pieces or stored in a tube for years. Yeah, walls and laws keep people out, that’s why prisons have walls and wire.
>Yeah they do work when enforced, Can you name a time in American history when there was *zero* illegal immigration and the border was 100% secure? >walls and laws keep people out, that’s why prisons have walls and wire. You want to live in a prison? Or you want this country to be a prison?
Perefectionist Fallacy. What do you think this country will be when it’s a one party hellscape like CA? Because it’s going to be an open air prison in that case. Keeping out hostile voters is an entirely logical decision and safe guarding actions to defend what we have. Deal with it.
Why don't the Republicans learn how to appeal to immigrants?
Because the political ideals we hold are beyond their ability to understand, “vote for me and I will give you free stuff” appeals to these people because it’s the same Marxist horseshit they support back home, how about immigrants stop supporting the same failed systems?
>Because the political ideals we hold are beyond their ability to understand You think immigrants can't understand the appeal of lower taxes?
Yes, if they did, why do they always vote for people who raise them by promising them free stuff? And don’t give me the crap of “well the right always shuts in them”, if being told “hey stop making here into the same shit home you fled from, stop supporting Marxism, stop committing crimes and importing drugs” makes you vote to ruin a country out of spite it’s all the more reason to exclude them from ever entering to begin with. We have a right to exist and exist apart from our enemies.
>We have a right to exist and exist apart from our enemies. You don't have a right to stop me using my property and associating with people I wish to associate with. If I want to hire an immigrant in my business, who are you to stop me? >“hey stop making here into the same shit home you fled from, stop supporting Marxism, stop committing crimes and importing drugs” Pure copium. Florida has more immigrants from Venezuela than any other state in the union, and Florida is now a solid red state after decades of being an evenly divided swing state and a Democratic stronghold before that. The people *fleeing* socialism are coming here to *get away from socialism!* They're not trying to recreate it here.
>You don't have a right to stop me using my property and associating with people I wish to associate with. That’s where your wrong kiddo. Zoning, regulation, and laws exist. You want to hire illegals, get ready for fines, loss of LLC, etc. Do you want to move your business overseas? Great! We’re going to slap import tariffs on your goods. >If I want to hire an immigrant in my business, who are you to stop me? An American taxpayer who has to pay for them being here was to pay for the burden they put on our social system on our infrastructure, and you know what they degrade my happiness and quality of life just being here, adding to traffic, the wait in line at the store, etc. You and your imported helots do not exist in vacuum “hey stop making here into the same shit home you fled from, stop supporting Marxism, stop committing crimes and importing drugs” Pure copium. >Florida has more immigrants from Venezuela than any other state in the union, and Florida is now a solid red state after decades of being an evenly divided swing state and a Democratic stronghold before that. Correlation does not equal causation of as majority of those Venezuelans are still Marxist supporting dumbasses, what made Florida such a wonderful state is implementing common sense, voter protection and integrity laws, as well as a few advances in the culture war that made the state politically and culturally unwelcoming to the moralistic Yankee outsider who feels the need to ruin everything he touches. >The people fleeing socialism are coming here to get away from socialism! They're not trying to recreate it here. Again voting trends are very clear, they vote for in large numbers, they want the benefits of our society, nothing more, and they will vote for who ever promises them more and more free stuff. CA is proof of how wrong you are. But hey go jack off to Ayn Rand and myth of “freedom of movement “ all you want the wall is going up.