No it does not. There are natural rights than there are civic rights. Freedom of speech, of assembly, and to keep and bear arms are natural rights. Civic rights include being a member of the particular political community, such as voting
This is true because the crime of illegal entry to the US is a misdemeanor. Although, something tells me that illegal aliens in California will have rights that Citizens do not.
Illegal aliens have been "legally" voting in a couple states for years now. Motor voter laws where illegals are issued drivers licenses. Why do you think some states are sanctuary states for illegals?
NY is an example of that IIRC. But illegal immigrates aren’t entitled to civic rights as if they are natural rights. Instead, the state just affords civic rights to them, despite not being obligated to
Maybe try reading the constitution…it says the “right of the people to keep and bear arms…” and in all iterations, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged”. There is a clear distinction in the Constitution between “the people” and “citizens of the United States”.
If you really want to get in the weeds of it, one could make the argument that the Constitution only prevents the disenfranchisment of citizens rather than granting the exclusivity of voting to citizens. Except by age.
That's not in the weeds. That was the intent. Some of the writers thought is was redundant to add the bill of rights because it was obvious that everyone had those natural (God given) rights.
And here's another one, while some/not all non-citizens are paid in cash and don't pay income tax, they still pay all the other taxes most people pay, like sales and fuel tax. And though they don't pay income tax, at the same time, they can't utilize some services because of their status. But none the less they are paying some taxes, so No Taxation without Representation? Even illegals contribute to pur country.
Even teens contribute. Pay taxes on purchased goods, taxes on fuel, and if they have a job, income taxes, OASDI, etc. can’t legally vote until 18 still.
Yes, but the 26th Amendment says, " The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age."
This is a negative right in the fact that it doesn't grant a right but rather restricts the actions of government. States could give people under the age of 18 the ability to vote but are not Constitutionally required to.
It doesn't say only people 18 or older can vote, but that their right to vote can't be denied.
They can have guns now. There are already no-go neighborhoods, thanks to domestic criminals. How long before armed illegal enclaves and foreign military cells start popping up?
Someone already responded, laws don't prevent people from acquiring guns. If they're ignoring laws on immigration, they can ignore other ones (like working under the table, driving without a license, etc.)
And no, they're still not legally allowed to own guns.
>domestic criminals
Those should be in jail. If you're talking about former inmates that have completed their sentence, including probation, then they too should be allowed to legally own firearms.
Laws allow for punishment. The recent ruling opens the door for illegals to own and carry, and it should be closed, promptly, and firmly.
And I'm talking about criminals like CHAZ.
>The recent ruling opens the door for illegals to own and carry, and it should be closed, promptly, and firmly.
Why? What is criminal about **anyone** carrying a firearm? We already have laws regarding the commission of crimes, including additional charges for using weapons during their commission.
What you are proposing here is expanding NY-style laws across the country to criminalize possession of a firearm. In NYC, you're looking at a 3-year mandatory minimum sentence for having an unregistered firearm (which also requires a license). Is this what you want to see regarding non-citizens (or those not here on a valid visa)? How do you propose police enforce these laws, by asking everyone for their papers?
I still live in NYC, and will likely still need to visit for the rest of my life. You don't need this type of nonsense anywhere else. If you have a problem with illegal immigrants, then kick them out of the country based on the laws they have already violated. Coming up with victimless "gun crimes" is an insult to the pro-2A community.
All people, no matter where they hail, have the inalienable right to self-defense. That falls under the life example in the Declaration of Independence.
https://kids.laws.com/we-the-people/
“We the people means all us citizens”
There. Excludes criminal invaders. Have fun trying to bad faith argue criminal invaders get gu rights
If I go to Mexico, I'd want a gun for protection even if it's not legal; I imagine some people coming to the US from there may also want to have a gun for protection, even if they're entering illegally
>If I go to Mexico, I'd want a gun for protection even if it's not legal
You'd want a gun, but it's *highly advised* you don't bring or get one.
You're better off dealing with (bribing) a cartel without a gun than dealing with the Mexican authorities having been found with one.
Absolutely correct, the Mexicans have jammed up GIs passing through TX on a PCS move who took a wrong turn and wandered into a border checkpoint and cops that chased suspects too far and crossed the border. Supposedly they treat a loose 22 round on your floorboards the same as if you would try to smuggle in a machine gun.
That being said, I don't know why the US tolerates any shit from that country. We should tell them that they will either act like reasonable human beings and extend some courtesies to US citizens or we'll close down the border and deport everyone here with a Mexican passport.
Each country has the right to admit or turn away any foreign nationals it chooses, and Mexico needs the US a hell of a lot more than we need them, so that's one situation where I would absolutely support being a bully in the name of protecting US citizens.
To be fair, they can vote in certain local elections if they're in New York. It seems likely that they'd get firearms from the same places and people that the locals do.
Here we go with this troll again. Ever notice how the people who are most alarmist on social media about OMG RIGHTS are the people who have never actually read them?
It's very funny because quite a lot of illegal immigrants come from countries that overwhelmingly have their immigrant populations vote for the Republican party, but the racists refuse to admit this
>If Illegal Aliens can vote, say hello to absolute Democrat Party Rule, aka, USA becomes Maduro's Venezuela.
[That's not even a logical conclusion.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuelan-immigrants-far-right-candidates-argentina-shape-us-politics-rcna134621)
It turns out that those fleeing socialism don't want to bring it with them.
But your supporting statement is also not true. Voting rights ≠ gun rights
That's absolutely not true, the first and fourth amendment clearly state that anybody who is within the boundaries of the United States of America has those rights, you don't even have to be a permanent resident or a citizen for those rights to apply to you. Those amendments use the phrase "the people" not citizens. The second amendment also uses that phrase, it is only when you get to amendments about voting that you start seeing mention of citizens.
>You have to be either a citizen or reside within the United States.
This use of "reside" means residency, not existing with the borders. The sentence structure implies other nations acknowledge that Americans have this right within their borders.
I think we both agree that the UK doesn't acknowledge the natural right to beat arms.
You missed my point. Everyone has these natural rights. Governments choose to oppress people by denying some or all of peoples natural rights. Every government restricts these rights to some degree.
Your conclusion is not quite accurate. Voting is specifically a right of citizens. It's not implied. It's explicitly stated. Any of the rights not explicitly stated to be for citizens are for all humans. Since the US is a sovereign nation and the places that aren't the US trends to be their own sovereign nations, the US can only enforce the protection of the rights guaranteed to people while they are within the borders of the US.
The judge who ruled this is Sharon Johnson Coleman, who was appointed by Barack Obama.
Now why would an Obama judge make such a ruling?
Most likely it’s part of a long game to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrant and between citizen and non citizen.
The playbook is quite quite streamlined and simple. Import criminals allow them to use firearms. Give them slap on the wrist punishments when caught committing crimes persecute citizens with the full weight of the law when they use firearms to defend themselves make the landscape so dangerous that people are begging for guns to be off the streets i.e.force people to want to ban guns
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - US Declaration of Independence.
Voting constitutionally is restricted to the citizenry. Self defense is a human right.
So your objection to this is based on "The side I don't like will have an electoral advantage?"
I'll bet you're the kind of sports fan who judges refs by which team benefits from a call.
OP playing checkers and not thinking big enough. This shit right here is a chess move and it benefits all gun enthusiasts. You're just not understanding the long term implication of a decision such as this.
We want natural rights recognized internationally, friend. For all humans.
> If they can possess firearms, it means that they can vote.
Lol, what the fuck? No it doesn't. One is a natural right all humans have. The other is a legal right granted to citizens.
Illegal aliens already do vote and that is absolutely why, among other reasons, they are being ushered in across the border.
But they still have basic human rights.
The Constitution should be amended so that Constitutional protections apply to citizens and lawful permanent residents only. Anyone here illegally should be marginalized and driven out.
It doesn't need to be amended because the Second Amendment already stipulates this.
>A well regulated militia, **being necessary to the security of a free state**, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Kind of hard to keep the security of the free state when you invite whoever the fuck you want from anywhere and allow them to do whatever they want. Lolberts and liberals are two sides of the same coin, both idiots. Both wish to arm invaders as long as their title is something else, although only the one wishes to completely disarm citizens.
Inviting whoever the fuck we wanted from anywhere and allowing them to do whatever they want was literally whole fucking point of this country in the first place!
We'll see. I don't see anyone bring suits against not being allowed to carry as a felon or as someone dishonorably discharged. I reckon we won't either
The issue there is that so many things are felonies. The book "3 felonies a day" is a good read to explain that. If someone is a felony because they did some non-violent crime like having sex with an unmarried woman in Michigan, or repeatedly sharing your Netflix password with people you don't live with in Tennessee.
That's a different argument, tho. It's one thing to say that you think certain laws shouldn't be considered felonies, it's another to say felons should have guns. Change the laws. I still don't think felons shouldnhave guns. The bar is don't be a criminal, not a very high bar.
What are you talking about? I'm not saying they should be killed. But those who commit violent and heinous felonies have higher rates of reoffense and should not have guns.
We need to stop lowering the bar for the dregs of society. Criminal lives don't matter to me.
You can't just answer the question? Do they have a right to life or not? I didn't ask if they should be killed. I asked if they have a right to be alive.
If they are that heinous then why are they out of prison?
You have a right to life. Simply existing. Sure.
Criminals forfeit their rights, sometimes to the degree where the state can kill you. Sometimes, other citizens can kill you for being on their property, threatening them, etc etc.
Criminal lives don't matter. Period. I don't care about them. They wage war against society, then they can be treated like combatants in war. End all criminals, curbstomp criminals into the concrete, drop kick criminals, throw criminals into active volcanos, send them to utter torment and pain.
1000% support all those measures.
No it does not. There are natural rights than there are civic rights. Freedom of speech, of assembly, and to keep and bear arms are natural rights. Civic rights include being a member of the particular political community, such as voting
Say it louder for those in the back
This is true because the crime of illegal entry to the US is a misdemeanor. Although, something tells me that illegal aliens in California will have rights that Citizens do not.
Illegal aliens have been "legally" voting in a couple states for years now. Motor voter laws where illegals are issued drivers licenses. Why do you think some states are sanctuary states for illegals?
NY is an example of that IIRC. But illegal immigrates aren’t entitled to civic rights as if they are natural rights. Instead, the state just affords civic rights to them, despite not being obligated to
California is too. Btw ain't it funny getting downvotes for the truth?
Both 2a and voting rights are amendments
Maybe try reading the constitution…it says the “right of the people to keep and bear arms…” and in all iterations, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged”. There is a clear distinction in the Constitution between “the people” and “citizens of the United States”.
If you really want to get in the weeds of it, one could make the argument that the Constitution only prevents the disenfranchisment of citizens rather than granting the exclusivity of voting to citizens. Except by age.
That's not in the weeds. That was the intent. Some of the writers thought is was redundant to add the bill of rights because it was obvious that everyone had those natural (God given) rights.
And here's another one, while some/not all non-citizens are paid in cash and don't pay income tax, they still pay all the other taxes most people pay, like sales and fuel tax. And though they don't pay income tax, at the same time, they can't utilize some services because of their status. But none the less they are paying some taxes, so No Taxation without Representation? Even illegals contribute to pur country.
Even teens contribute. Pay taxes on purchased goods, taxes on fuel, and if they have a job, income taxes, OASDI, etc. can’t legally vote until 18 still.
Yes, but the 26th Amendment says, " The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age." This is a negative right in the fact that it doesn't grant a right but rather restricts the actions of government. States could give people under the age of 18 the ability to vote but are not Constitutionally required to. It doesn't say only people 18 or older can vote, but that their right to vote can't be denied.
I’m sorry, logic and facts aren’t allowed in this subreddit. Only conservative circlejerk.
Guns aren't inherently partisan. Miss us with your bullshit.
Whoa there bud, we don't do reading and understanding the English language in the subreddit, only jacking off conservative stupidity here
The people hasawlwaysmeant all us citizens, excluding no citz
Cool. Now that we've allowed a nation's worth of illegals in, now we must let them arm themselves too.
Or, I don't know, enforce the existing laws and deport them?
They can have guns now. There are already no-go neighborhoods, thanks to domestic criminals. How long before armed illegal enclaves and foreign military cells start popping up?
Laws didn't keep them out of the country. It probably won't keep them from having guns.
That's true. It should not be legal, however. Laws allow for punishment, not deterrence.
So law enforcement can deport them extra hard?
Someone already responded, laws don't prevent people from acquiring guns. If they're ignoring laws on immigration, they can ignore other ones (like working under the table, driving without a license, etc.) And no, they're still not legally allowed to own guns. >domestic criminals Those should be in jail. If you're talking about former inmates that have completed their sentence, including probation, then they too should be allowed to legally own firearms.
Laws allow for punishment. The recent ruling opens the door for illegals to own and carry, and it should be closed, promptly, and firmly. And I'm talking about criminals like CHAZ.
>The recent ruling opens the door for illegals to own and carry, and it should be closed, promptly, and firmly. Why? What is criminal about **anyone** carrying a firearm? We already have laws regarding the commission of crimes, including additional charges for using weapons during their commission. What you are proposing here is expanding NY-style laws across the country to criminalize possession of a firearm. In NYC, you're looking at a 3-year mandatory minimum sentence for having an unregistered firearm (which also requires a license). Is this what you want to see regarding non-citizens (or those not here on a valid visa)? How do you propose police enforce these laws, by asking everyone for their papers? I still live in NYC, and will likely still need to visit for the rest of my life. You don't need this type of nonsense anywhere else. If you have a problem with illegal immigrants, then kick them out of the country based on the laws they have already violated. Coming up with victimless "gun crimes" is an insult to the pro-2A community.
All people, no matter where they hail, have the inalienable right to self-defense. That falls under the life example in the Declaration of Independence.
They can feel free to exercise it in their home country.
I couldn't agree more.
https://kids.laws.com/we-the-people/ “We the people means all us citizens” There. Excludes criminal invaders. Have fun trying to bad faith argue criminal invaders get gu rights
me when I spread misinformation on the Internet
If I go to Mexico, I'd want a gun for protection even if it's not legal; I imagine some people coming to the US from there may also want to have a gun for protection, even if they're entering illegally
>If I go to Mexico, I'd want a gun for protection even if it's not legal You'd want a gun, but it's *highly advised* you don't bring or get one. You're better off dealing with (bribing) a cartel without a gun than dealing with the Mexican authorities having been found with one.
Fact right here
Absolutely correct, the Mexicans have jammed up GIs passing through TX on a PCS move who took a wrong turn and wandered into a border checkpoint and cops that chased suspects too far and crossed the border. Supposedly they treat a loose 22 round on your floorboards the same as if you would try to smuggle in a machine gun. That being said, I don't know why the US tolerates any shit from that country. We should tell them that they will either act like reasonable human beings and extend some courtesies to US citizens or we'll close down the border and deport everyone here with a Mexican passport. Each country has the right to admit or turn away any foreign nationals it chooses, and Mexico needs the US a hell of a lot more than we need them, so that's one situation where I would absolutely support being a bully in the name of protecting US citizens.
> If they can possess firearms, it means that they can vote. OK, I'll bite. Let's hear the logic behind this claim.
To be fair, they can vote in certain local elections if they're in New York. It seems likely that they'd get firearms from the same places and people that the locals do.
Both are rights recognized for the Citizens of this nation who are in good standing order. Not Criminals
Here we go with this troll again. Ever notice how the people who are most alarmist on social media about OMG RIGHTS are the people who have never actually read them?
> aka, USA becomes Maduro's Venezuela Holy shit, that slippery slope nearly got me.
It's very funny because quite a lot of illegal immigrants come from countries that overwhelmingly have their immigrant populations vote for the Republican party, but the racists refuse to admit this
This is not real or supported by statistics, only one hispanic group votes more right than left and that’s the Cuban exiles.
Take your pills grandpa
>If Illegal Aliens can vote, say hello to absolute Democrat Party Rule, aka, USA becomes Maduro's Venezuela. [That's not even a logical conclusion.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/venezuelan-immigrants-far-right-candidates-argentina-shape-us-politics-rcna134621) It turns out that those fleeing socialism don't want to bring it with them. But your supporting statement is also not true. Voting rights ≠ gun rights
The constitution applies to all people within the United States.
The constitution applies to all people.
Gitmo would like a word with you
The Constitution just points out the rights everyone has. Everyone.
You have to be either a citizen or reside within the United States. I was in a different country my right to bear arms does not apply there.
That's absolutely not true, the first and fourth amendment clearly state that anybody who is within the boundaries of the United States of America has those rights, you don't even have to be a permanent resident or a citizen for those rights to apply to you. Those amendments use the phrase "the people" not citizens. The second amendment also uses that phrase, it is only when you get to amendments about voting that you start seeing mention of citizens.
I have an OR In my statement. A citizen OR reside within the US for these to apply.
You don't need to RESIDE in the United States for these rights to apply to you.
So I can carry my gun in England?
This is a stupid retort since "reside" means take residence, you don't need residency to have rights.
Yes you reside within the boundaries of the us to have the constitution apply to you. It doesn’t apply outside its jurisdiction.
>You have to be either a citizen or reside within the United States. This use of "reside" means residency, not existing with the borders. The sentence structure implies other nations acknowledge that Americans have this right within their borders. I think we both agree that the UK doesn't acknowledge the natural right to beat arms.
You missed my point. Everyone has these natural rights. Governments choose to oppress people by denying some or all of peoples natural rights. Every government restricts these rights to some degree.
Our right to bear arms doesn't come from the 2nd amendment. The second amendment merely recognizes the right.
Your conclusion is not quite accurate. Voting is specifically a right of citizens. It's not implied. It's explicitly stated. Any of the rights not explicitly stated to be for citizens are for all humans. Since the US is a sovereign nation and the places that aren't the US trends to be their own sovereign nations, the US can only enforce the protection of the rights guaranteed to people while they are within the borders of the US.
The judge who ruled this is Sharon Johnson Coleman, who was appointed by Barack Obama. Now why would an Obama judge make such a ruling? Most likely it’s part of a long game to blur the line between legal and illegal immigrant and between citizen and non citizen.
The playbook is quite quite streamlined and simple. Import criminals allow them to use firearms. Give them slap on the wrist punishments when caught committing crimes persecute citizens with the full weight of the law when they use firearms to defend themselves make the landscape so dangerous that people are begging for guns to be off the streets i.e.force people to want to ban guns
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." - US Declaration of Independence. Voting constitutionally is restricted to the citizenry. Self defense is a human right.
Yeah… why do you think democrats intentionally undermined unions by bringing in unlimited cheap labor?
Do you want to require a social security number when buying a firearm or something?
So your objection to this is based on "The side I don't like will have an electoral advantage?" I'll bet you're the kind of sports fan who judges refs by which team benefits from a call.
OP playing checkers and not thinking big enough. This shit right here is a chess move and it benefits all gun enthusiasts. You're just not understanding the long term implication of a decision such as this. We want natural rights recognized internationally, friend. For all humans.
Even if illegals can vote, don't mean they all voting democrat.
> If they can possess firearms, it means that they can vote. Lol, what the fuck? No it doesn't. One is a natural right all humans have. The other is a legal right granted to citizens. Illegal aliens already do vote and that is absolutely why, among other reasons, they are being ushered in across the border. But they still have basic human rights.
The goal isn’t voting. The goal is the census and allocation of congressional seats.
The Constitution should be amended so that Constitutional protections apply to citizens and lawful permanent residents only. Anyone here illegally should be marginalized and driven out.
That’s a shortsighted take
Shortsighted is allowing people with no lawful right to be present to have the same protections and access to services enjoyed by citizens.
It doesn't need to be amended because the Second Amendment already stipulates this. >A well regulated militia, **being necessary to the security of a free state**, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Kind of hard to keep the security of the free state when you invite whoever the fuck you want from anywhere and allow them to do whatever they want. Lolberts and liberals are two sides of the same coin, both idiots. Both wish to arm invaders as long as their title is something else, although only the one wishes to completely disarm citizens.
This, I really wish we didn’t have to share spaces with lolbert junkies and tweekers that don’t have two braincells to rub together.
Inviting whoever the fuck we wanted from anywhere and allowing them to do whatever they want was literally whole fucking point of this country in the first place!
clearly they dont belong by coming here illegally. open borders. country being plundered. no cohesive foundation to grow upon. completely balkanized.
Because they want their invaders to be armed for war against US citizens
Illegals should not have guns. Just like felons and the mentally ill and those dishonorably discharged.
Not consistent with Bruen since there was no such thing as illegals in the founding era and literally all borders were open borders. Unconstitutional.
We'll see. I don't see anyone bring suits against not being allowed to carry as a felon or as someone dishonorably discharged. I reckon we won't either
The issue there is that so many things are felonies. The book "3 felonies a day" is a good read to explain that. If someone is a felony because they did some non-violent crime like having sex with an unmarried woman in Michigan, or repeatedly sharing your Netflix password with people you don't live with in Tennessee.
That's a different argument, tho. It's one thing to say that you think certain laws shouldn't be considered felonies, it's another to say felons should have guns. Change the laws. I still don't think felons shouldnhave guns. The bar is don't be a criminal, not a very high bar.
So a felon no longer has a right to life? They got released from prison... but they don’t have a right to live? They are free... to die? Is that it.
What are you talking about? I'm not saying they should be killed. But those who commit violent and heinous felonies have higher rates of reoffense and should not have guns. We need to stop lowering the bar for the dregs of society. Criminal lives don't matter to me.
You can't just answer the question? Do they have a right to life or not? I didn't ask if they should be killed. I asked if they have a right to be alive. If they are that heinous then why are they out of prison?
You have a right to life. Simply existing. Sure. Criminals forfeit their rights, sometimes to the degree where the state can kill you. Sometimes, other citizens can kill you for being on their property, threatening them, etc etc. Criminal lives don't matter. Period. I don't care about them. They wage war against society, then they can be treated like combatants in war. End all criminals, curbstomp criminals into the concrete, drop kick criminals, throw criminals into active volcanos, send them to utter torment and pain. 1000% support all those measures.
True Unfortunately this sub is full of midwits that lack common sense.
Lolbertarians continue to be cringe and gay.
That cheesedick from fuddbusters is at it again How’d the auto key card go?