Should Illegal Immigrants Be allowed RKBA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
What I've been saying is that they do, unequivocally, have the right. They're human beings, they do have the right to be armed just like everyone else. I'm saying as a matter of principle that all humans everywhere have the right to be armed.

Now just because they have that right doesn't mean we will or should recognize it in our country. They have the right, even and especially here, but whether we recognize it or not is a totally different question, and one that most of the people who are saying "no" to the question are considering as the only question.

And as far as need goes, an illegal immigrant with a family is much more likely to need a weapon than I am. He's the one living in the sh*tty neighborhoods making less than minimum wage.

And aside from that, an illegal immigrant, apparently, is not a felon, because what they've done is a misdemeanor. So they haven't exactly lost RKBA because to do that, you'd need to commit a felony. On the other hand, they don't fall under the protection of the constitution as far as RKBA goes, that I recognize.
Click to expand...

Maybe your illegal immigrants in Wisconsin are exemplary wannabe-citizens; ours are not. We need protection from them, not the other way around, and I'm not really that concerned about illegal-on-illegal crime.

What's the point of saying they have the right to be armed but agreeing with me, apparently, that they don't have the right HERE? Okay, fine, let them go back to Mexico, Guatemala, and El Salvador and proclaim their right to be armed for all to hear. I'm sure that will fall on deaf ears but, as you aver, The Right Will Remain.
 
Maybe your illegal immigrants in Wisconsin are exemplary wannabe-citizens; ours are not. We need protection from them, not the other way around, and I'm not really that concerned about illegal-on-illegal crime.
Click to expand...

Speak for youself. I've live in CA all my life and I've never felt like I needed protection from illegals. They've never caused me a single problem.

I dont believe illegals should have guns though because I actually support some forms of gun control. I have no problem with people having to pass background checks to get a gun. Illegals obviously cannot pass such a check, therefore they shouldnt get a gun.
 
hah!

Owning a ***** is also a felony in some jurisdictions. Want to prohibit RKBA to some THR members in Texas and Georgia? RKBA is a human right which should not be denied by law, except to those who are already convicted and incarcerated.
__________________

did i just hear oleg say "*****"?!
 
Speak for youself. I've live in CA all my life and I've never felt like I needed protection from illegals. They've never caused me a single problem.
Click to expand...

Well, score one for anecdotal evidence.

You can easily apprize yourself of how many illegal aliens in California are in prison, commit crimes, or comprise the ranks of gang members. It's huge.
 
well, even though in my book they are criminals (illegal aliens) and I think they should all be hunted down and deported as invaders they still have a right to defend themselves as anyone else. Carrying arms should not be a crime in and of itself. The right to keep and bear arms (defense) is not something the government, the state or the Constution gives or takes away, it is a fundamental God given right.

However, that being said, illegals are att his point mass invaders, as such, if the Congress would legally declare war on Mexico (really not a bad idea) for their support in this illegal immigrant invasion, prisoners of war do not have the RTKBA. But that is a rather moot point considering that illegals are supposed to be placed under arrest war or no war upon discovery.
 
Hey folks, I'm a simple guy, so let's try somthing simple; do you have a right to say who is and isn't armed in your house and upon your property? Can God interfere?

Biker
 
ethnic cleansing in Southern California

Okay, let's cut to the chase: THIS is the reality of what's going on in Southern California and in a 'hood near you.

U.S. Accuses 4 Gang Members of Hate Crime in Black's Killing
Prosecutor says 1999 slaying was part of a conspiracy to keep African Americans out of turf claimed in Highland Park.
By John Spano, Times Staff Writer
June 29, 2006

A Latino street gang threatened, assaulted, terrorized and murdered black people in Highland Park for six years in an effort to keep them out of their territory, a federal prosecutor alleged Wednesday.

"Kenneth Wilson was killed because he was black, because he was in Highland Park and because the Avenues gang members had promised each other, had agreed that they would drive African Americans out of the neighborhood, by threats, by force, by murder," Assistant U.S. Atty. Alex Bustamante told jurors.

Prosecutors used a federal hate crimes law, based on the 13th Amendment to the Constitution outlawing slavery, to prosecute the defendants, along with conspiracy charges, in Wilson's death.

The defense claimed without success that the federal government has no power to involve itself in a common street crime, such as Wilson's 1999 murder in a car in Highland Park.

The defendants are Gilbert Saldana, Alejandro Martinez, Fernando Cazares and Porfirio Avila. The trial opened under extraordinary security in the Edward R. Roybal Courthouse downtown, with federal officers blanketing all exits from the courtroom.

The defendants sat behind three rising rows of seats opposite the jury, each shackled to the floor.

The restraints were behind an elaborate set of risers that make them invisible to others in the courtroom.

Defense attorney Reuven L. Cohen urged jurors to keep an open mind and to reject testimony from three former Avenues gang members who he said turned government informants to curry favor with prosecutors.

One of them, David Cruz, a convicted, deported felon who was brought into the U.S. to testify for the government, was at the center of a series of hearings before U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson leading up to the trial.

The alleged conspiracy included multiple assaults on blacks, and prosecutors said they have linked two other killings to the scheme.

"They wanted all blacks out of that neighborhood, not just African American men, not just African American gang members but all African American women and children," Bustamante said.

Cohen said the crimes sprang in part from racial prejudice "that exists in every pocket of every corner of every part of our city."
 
Um... I thought we were discussing illegals and not violent gang members?

If every illegal was a violent gang member, all 10-20 million of them, we would be in some serious do-do.

More likely a very small fraction. However I believe that story outlines exactly why illegals would have a need to be armed.

I however don't think anyone needs to have a "reason" to be armed.

Reducing it down to a "do you have the right to control who comes on your property" argument, is a bit to simplistic the answer to that is, of course you do.

A more accurate example would be a medium size community.
Would you have the right to tell your neighbors who they can a can not consort with? And what their guests can and can't do?
For some things sure, but to go as far as to insist on infringing on another persons human rights?
At that point I am sure your neighbor would tell you what...
 
"A more accurate example would be a medium size community.
Would you have the right to tell your neighbors who they can a can not consort with? And what their guests can and can't do?
For some things sure, but to go as far as to insist on infringing on another persons human rights?
At that point I am sure your neighbor would tell you what..."

You really don't get it do you? Vicente Fox was here in the US telling us what we could or couldn't do with the illegal aliens from Mexico, would that not be the equivalent?

I don't tell my neighbors what to do until it infringes on my rights to live peaceably. If I thought they were doing something illegal, then I MIGHT be inclined to report, but not likely. If someone is in your home (country), you have the authority to tell them what they can or cannot do in your home (country). Illegals are not citizens of the US, and they should not have arms. If they'd like to be armed, they should do so in their own house (country). What is so hard to get about this concept?

Have a great Kenpo day

Clyde
 
I'm not agreeing with you that they don't have the right here, longeyes.

I'm saying that they do have the right here, and everywhere else, even if the law here and everywhere else says they can't exercise it. Its an important difference.

If we were to claim that they didn't have the right period, we would be violating their human rights in a much worse way than by saying that they do have the right, but due to the nature of their status, they cannot exercise it.

One is a categorical denial without qualification, the other is a qualified denial based on legal standing. The latter indicates that it is a condition that can be changed if they work with us. The former states that they don't have the right at all, so we never, ever have to allow them their human right.

There's a huge difference between the two, and to me the principle has to be preserved if our intent and later our laws are to be formed in a responsible way.
 
I don't get it? O.K.:rolleyes: lol

I sounds a lot more like some people here don't seem to understand that the whole of the US does not want illegals gone. Like it or not they are the guests of some here in the US.

If everyone here wanted them gone then guess what, they would be gone by now.
No one would employ them.
No one would sell to them.
No one would rent to them.
No one would speak to them.
No social programs would be available to them.
No medical care would be available to them.
No welfare programs would be available to them.
No one would do bussness with them.
And so on.

As far as the mexican president comming here and stating what we can and can't do, we are under no obligation to listen to or do anything he says, as he is not in a position of power in our government.
Now if President Bush wants to listen to him that is a diffrent story....

In stating that they have human rights but are not allowed them here ,we are opening up the door (again) to having a group of people here in the US that effectively have no rights and we can do "anything" we want to them.

Since it is obvious that illegals are the guests of some here, they should be treated as such.
In my mind that includes having human rights apply to them, Including the RIGHT to keep and bear arms.
 
illegals allowed to buy or possess guns? No. Boneheaded idea. They are not the "guests' of anyone, and should all be rounded up, imprisoned, and deported.
They should go home and clean up their own cesspool of a country, and stop bitching about how badly they are treated here.
 
If you believe in the rule of law--I mean human not "divine law"--then you understand that you have no right to have "guests" illegally. Because some of my fellow citizens see no problem with breaking the law doesn't make it right. In the end this will only set American against American--which, frankly, is what I expect to see. So be it. Deus vult.

"I'm not agreeing with you that they don't have the right here, longeyes.

I'm saying that they do have the right here, and everywhere else, even if the law here and everywhere else says they can't exercise it. Its an important difference.

If we were to claim that they didn't have the right period, we would be violating their human rights in a much worse way than by saying that they do have the right, but due to the nature of their status, they cannot exercise it."
Click to expand...

A natural right to self-defense? Why yes. And, apparently, unless my eyes deceive me, a natural right to prey on the weaker.

For that, sir, is the way of nature. Eat and be eaten. Men, enlightened men, form societies to curb humanity's worse desires. Maybe you've noticed that.

Arm illegal aliens because of some theoretical right? I'll tell you where that ends: in warlords, vigilantes, and the Mogadishu of the soul.

I can see this thread is a waste of my mental bandwidth.
 
well, the right to bare and keep arms is a human right, remember the bill of rights protects rights, not gives them.

That said I fully support their right to such in their native land once they get the hell out of mine :)
 
If the right to keep and bear arms were a "human/natural right" it would be pervasive and automatic. No, it's an ideal, discovered by men, promulgated by men, protected by men. What is "natural" is predation and domination, with a "natural" repercussion of that being resistance (by some, when possible). Most human societies have been highly autocratic, with the predominant power concentrated and consolidated and a warrior class dominating the knowledge of and use of weapons. This "human right" grows out of an understanding of the desirability of individual political freedom and co-exists with that insight, is inseparable from it. As we lose this understanding, which, it appears, we are, worldwise, the individual right to keep and bear arms is waning, and the age-old pattern of state control prevails.

We will have the rights we understand the value of and fight to keep.
 
I guess we must be looking back at history in differing ways.

What I see is, that when one group has been allowed to be treated inhumanly, they have been.

The three current solutions to this problem are:

1.Essentially that no one is armed with anything, from thermonuclear weapons to their own fist because that is what is causing the violence and death. Right? Or so the liberals would like us all to believe.

This plan is so unfeasable it for all intents and purposes may as well be impossible to accomplish and serves no reason other than to waste time and resources to try to implement.

2.Only some people be allowed to be armed.Which looks to be about the majority opinion here.

"If the right to keep and bear arms were a "human/natural right" it would be pervasive and automatic."

Thats akin to saying "If man had been ment to fly,he would have been born with wings.:rolleyes:

"What is "natural" is predation and domination, with a "natural" repercussion of that being resistance (by some, when possible)."

If you were refering to anamals you would be right. Man is not a, and is seperate from, animals. Now weather or not man was created by a god...(the jury is still out on that one.)

Just because one group in our past has domanitated an other does not make it right. To the contrary I would say that this behavior has been a constant problem to everyone and that is precisely why no one group should ever hold all the power. "Power corrupts ,absolute power corrupts absolutely"

3.Everyone anywhere be allowed their right to a effective means of self defence.

While this one does have it own set of problems, mainly criminals, it is far better than either of the alternatives.

So should "illegals" be allowed their human right to be armed with an effictive means of self defence as described by the second amendment to the Constitution?That amendment which in its self does not grant any one any right but instead tells the government what can not be taken from anyone with out due process of law.

Now until being a illegal is turned into a felony and equated with murder, rape and the like, and basicly becomes an unjust law, just like any law that currently restricts the law abiding gun owner.

Absolutely, YES they do.
 
I'll keep my illegals disarmed, thank you.

I don't ground the RKBA in some all-powerful state I ground it in the minds of men able to comprehend the value of individual liberty and in their wills, to defend it. That means some men, not all men.

Armed men who do not believe in individual liberty are no boon. History has made this abundantly clear.
 
I believe every illegal alien should have the right to keep and bear arms in their own country of origin, if allowed, after they have served a mandatory 20 year prison sentence in our country.

In other words, the issue is not that they cannot keep and bear arms. The problem is that we, as a people, would even consider people who violate our laws and borders to be anything other than criminal. That is outrageous!

Sometimes I think the US needs a huge cerebral enema. :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
If illegal immigration is so bad, then why doesnt anyone want to stop it?
2
Replies
40
Views
1K
Marko Kloos
M
F
  • Locked
Equal protection under the law and illegal immigrants
2 3
Replies
54
Views
1K
Sam
S
K
  • Locked
Scholarships to Illegal Immigrants
Replies
9
Views
474
longeyes
L
L
  • Locked
illegal immigrants get faith-based pass?
Replies
15
Views
599
longeyes
L
E
  • Locked
Rep Responds to Immigration Reform Bill Email
Replies
0
Views
275
eric_t12
E
Back
Top