Should Illegal Immigrants Be allowed RKBA?
- Thread starter Matt King
- Start date
- Status
This is a pretty good question.
I think it all breaks down into how you interperate the constitutions deffinition of "the people"
If "the people" are absolutly everyone, then no we can't stand in the way of their right to bear arms.
but if however we recognize that at the time of the constitutions framing, "we the people" was a designation reserved for the citizens of the united states of america, and at the time didn't apply to women, slaves, indians or other non citizen groups. Then there is ample ground with which to refute the illigal alians claim on firearm ownership.
Once citizenship is extended to an individual (or group) they gain full protection under the bill of rights, except that as a natualized citizen they can not become president.
I would argue that anyone who holds no alligiance to the united states of america through citizenship, or naturalization, should not be permitted to bear arms on our soverign soil. as doing so without permission would seem to constitute an armed invasion by foreign powers.
This doesn't mean that legal immigrants, or foreign nationals should be barred compleatly from firearm ownership during their stay in our country. But as individuals who have aliegiance elsewhere, they should comply with the laws of their host country, as well as their home country.
I have to run to lunch, more on this later.
I think it all breaks down into how you interperate the constitutions deffinition of "the people"
If "the people" are absolutly everyone, then no we can't stand in the way of their right to bear arms.
but if however we recognize that at the time of the constitutions framing, "we the people" was a designation reserved for the citizens of the united states of america, and at the time didn't apply to women, slaves, indians or other non citizen groups. Then there is ample ground with which to refute the illigal alians claim on firearm ownership.
Once citizenship is extended to an individual (or group) they gain full protection under the bill of rights, except that as a natualized citizen they can not become president.
I would argue that anyone who holds no alligiance to the united states of america through citizenship, or naturalization, should not be permitted to bear arms on our soverign soil. as doing so without permission would seem to constitute an armed invasion by foreign powers.
This doesn't mean that legal immigrants, or foreign nationals should be barred compleatly from firearm ownership during their stay in our country. But as individuals who have aliegiance elsewhere, they should comply with the laws of their host country, as well as their home country.
I have to run to lunch, more on this later.
Not just no, but, Hell no!
The aren't citizens and as such should not enjoy any of the privileges of this country. Also, if they are here illegally, they have already demonstrated a willingness to violate law, and obviously they think they should be able to pick and choose the laws they are going to obey or break. I'm not comfortable with then giving them a gun.
I don't think we should make it easy for people who aren't supposed to be here to arm themselves. I don't think we should make anything easy for people who are here illegally.
The aren't citizens and as such should not enjoy any of the privileges of this country. Also, if they are here illegally, they have already demonstrated a willingness to violate law, and obviously they think they should be able to pick and choose the laws they are going to obey or break. I'm not comfortable with then giving them a gun.
I don't think we should make it easy for people who aren't supposed to be here to arm themselves. I don't think we should make anything easy for people who are here illegally.
Mr. James
Member
Yes.
Quite simply, because the right at issue inheres in each of us as human beings or, as some may think of it, as children of God. Such rights have nothing to do with one's status as legal or illegal. Such rights are not "granted," although assuredly they may be violated, by a Constitution or a government.
Of course, I also believe we should round up as many illegals as we can, whether armed or not, and show them and their arms to the back gate.
Pax vobiscum.
Quite simply, because the right at issue inheres in each of us as human beings or, as some may think of it, as children of God. Such rights have nothing to do with one's status as legal or illegal. Such rights are not "granted," although assuredly they may be violated, by a Constitution or a government.
Of course, I also believe we should round up as many illegals as we can, whether armed or not, and show them and their arms to the back gate.
Pax vobiscum.
Absolutely not ! Here again the key word is "illegal" (as well as non-citizen).
I agree with the first part up to a point, & that point is illegal activity, by defining persons as illegal in the question I believe the only answer is NO , not here .
I think they should have the right in their own country where they can reside legally but that's for them (country of origin) to determine .
Low-Sci
Member
I see it like this. The right to self defense is a right not granted to us by a government. It is not given to us, in fact, by anyone at all. It is our own right by birth to be able to effectively defend ourselves. It, to my way of thinking, is a right that you should only ever lose if you end up abusing the tools that you were supposed to use in defense.
Felons are one group who have managed to earn their way out of their right to self defense, but even at that, I don't agree that all types of felons should be stripped of 2A for all types and natures of felonies. For instance, you're absolutely right I don't want a serial rapist to ever possess a firearm for as long as he lives. However, I don't think a family man should be denied the means to defend his family simply because he crossed a border illegally in an attempt to make life better for his own. I'm not saying that the profile is typical, but only that it does happen.
But strictly by the law, an illegal immigrant is generally guilty of at least one felony, so to be absolute about it, it would also be illegal for an illegal immigrant to possess a firearm, because its a given that he's a felon. Of course, for some of them, that won't stop them. And for others, it shouldn't stop them.
Felons are one group who have managed to earn their way out of their right to self defense, but even at that, I don't agree that all types of felons should be stripped of 2A for all types and natures of felonies. For instance, you're absolutely right I don't want a serial rapist to ever possess a firearm for as long as he lives. However, I don't think a family man should be denied the means to defend his family simply because he crossed a border illegally in an attempt to make life better for his own. I'm not saying that the profile is typical, but only that it does happen.
But strictly by the law, an illegal immigrant is generally guilty of at least one felony, so to be absolute about it, it would also be illegal for an illegal immigrant to possess a firearm, because its a given that he's a felon. Of course, for some of them, that won't stop them. And for others, it shouldn't stop them.
cuchulainn
Member
So, you're saying that a "citizen" is whoever "we" says it is ... and only citizens get guns ... and if "we" say "women ain't citizens any more" ...
So ... rights are granted by "extending" citizenship?
FeebMaster
Member
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2004
- Messages
- 275
Yes, of course. It's a human right.
Privledge. lol
espanola said:
Privledge. lol
Yeah, as someone mentioned.
"We the People of the United States, ..." in the preamble indicates "the People" are citizens of the United States.
This does not contradict the current interpretation of the 5th and 6th as those use the respectve terms, "No person" and "the accused", both of which broadly indicate all humans are protected by their sections.
"We the People of the United States, ..." in the preamble indicates "the People" are citizens of the United States.
This does not contradict the current interpretation of the 5th and 6th as those use the respectve terms, "No person" and "the accused", both of which broadly indicate all humans are protected by their sections.
Roadwild17
Member
They are ILLEGEALS; why are we even having this argument. :banghead:
Low-Sci
Member
We're having this discussion because "thats the way it is" doesn't have to be settled for. Maybe that's not good enough for some of us. If its good enough for you, great. Don't read this mess then.
But personally, I think it may actually be a good thing that people think and question what goes on around them and decide for themselves what's right, because what's right isn't always whats legal, and whats legal isn't always right.
And of course, there are several opinions on the matter. One could take a purely legal ground and be very much in the right. Or one could take a moral stance and disagree with the legal approach, and also be very much in the right.
But the question wasn't "is it legal," the question was "should," and that makes for a very different, much more thought-provoking discussion.
But personally, I think it may actually be a good thing that people think and question what goes on around them and decide for themselves what's right, because what's right isn't always whats legal, and whats legal isn't always right.
And of course, there are several opinions on the matter. One could take a purely legal ground and be very much in the right. Or one could take a moral stance and disagree with the legal approach, and also be very much in the right.
But the question wasn't "is it legal," the question was "should," and that makes for a very different, much more thought-provoking discussion.
NO...........
What part of illegal aliens are illegal is not understood? Throw them out of the country and when they come back LEGALLY, and become citizens, then they can buy all the guns they want. But, of course, the yellow paper is not in spanish, yet.........chris3
What part of illegal aliens are illegal is not understood? Throw them out of the country and when they come back LEGALLY, and become citizens, then they can buy all the guns they want. But, of course, the yellow paper is not in spanish, yet.........chris3
cuchulainn
Member
Very good.
(Though I'm not sure that "person" and "people" have different meanings.)RKBA =/= 2nd Amt. It is reasonably possible to believe that while the RKBA extends to "all humans," the 2nd Amt extends only to "the people" (citizens). I still find it troubling, though, that the 2nd thus protects only those that "we" define (or un-define) as citizens.
Of course, what about the illegal alien's RKBA as implied by the 9th Amt?
Roadwild17
Member
OK, why would an illegal need to buy a gun would be an appropriate question to ask in this situation. So why would they? I can’t think of a single reason they would need one. It’s not like they have a house to protect. They cant CCW so how are they going to protect themselves? How would they pass a background check?
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
Nor is it yellow...
Seriously, being an illegal isn't a felony, and it isn't violent. If we truly believe that the RKBA is inalienable, then I don't see an ideologically consistent way to justify denying the RKBA to illegal immigrants.
and Freddymac, I doubt the money that the illegals are draining out of the economy com even close to the precipice your namesake is pushing the US towards http://www.suntimes.com/output/savage/cst-fin-terry122.html
An Illegal immigrant is a fugitive from the law, so they should be treated like any other criminal...no guns. I believe that if you prove yourself to be an irresponsible and criminal citizen/person in this country, it is a fitting punishment to ban you from obtaining firearms. Those who are in this country illegaly and who are trying to gain the benifits of a citizen are draining all citizens of the USA and destroying the freedom that we have. With great freedom, there is great responsibility...and with no responsibility, there will be no freedom.
Low-Sci
Member
"why would an illegal need to buy a gun would be an appropriate question to ask in this situation. So why would they? I can’t think of a single reason they would need one.
They would need one for the same reasons we need one. Do you really feel that you have to have a house and a carry permit to require the ability to defend yourself? Do you think illegals are immune to violent crime? Do you think no illegal has a family worth defending? Do you think there's no possible way a hate crime would ever be committed against an illegal immigrant?
I live in an apartment, as do a vast number of illegal immigrants. Does that mean I don't need my guns either? I can't CCW. Should I turn them in? Do either of these things render my weapon useless if I need it? Do these things mean, definitively, that I will never be put in a situation where I will need my gun?
They would need one for the same reasons we need one. Do you really feel that you have to have a house and a carry permit to require the ability to defend yourself? Do you think illegals are immune to violent crime? Do you think no illegal has a family worth defending? Do you think there's no possible way a hate crime would ever be committed against an illegal immigrant?
I live in an apartment, as do a vast number of illegal immigrants. Does that mean I don't need my guns either? I can't CCW. Should I turn them in? Do either of these things render my weapon useless if I need it? Do these things mean, definitively, that I will never be put in a situation where I will need my gun?
An illegal would buy a gun for the same reasons anyone else would - to protect themselves and their loved ones from serious bodily injury or death.
Many illegals do not have social security cards. Without a SS card they cannot open a bank account. Without a bank account they wind up carrying large amounts of cash on their person.
Some illegals get the Taxpayer Identification Number and DO pay federal income taxes.
Some illegals rent apartments. People are generally allowed to protect their place of abode from intruders.
Some illegals VOTE in local elections because they rent property and pay local taxes.
Many illegals do not have social security cards. Without a SS card they cannot open a bank account. Without a bank account they wind up carrying large amounts of cash on their person.
Some illegals get the Taxpayer Identification Number and DO pay federal income taxes.
Some illegals rent apartments. People are generally allowed to protect their place of abode from intruders.
Some illegals VOTE in local elections because they rent property and pay local taxes.
MIL-DOT
member
*** ??????
after 13 years working as a dive instructor in mexico, i've seen first hand how seriously they take THEIR immigration laws. after my FM3(work visa) expired ,i was actually deported back around "93, then returned and got legal again. this whole issue burns me up more than any other,and i am mystified how any of us can even consider giving illegals firearms,drivers licenses, or just about any damn thing other than a bus ride home !!!!
:banghead:
after 13 years working as a dive instructor in mexico, i've seen first hand how seriously they take THEIR immigration laws. after my FM3(work visa) expired ,i was actually deported back around "93, then returned and got legal again. this whole issue burns me up more than any other,and i am mystified how any of us can even consider giving illegals firearms,drivers licenses, or just about any damn thing other than a bus ride home !!!!
:banghead: How about this.
Do away with the Brady law. Do away with NICS. Do away with the 4473 form. Make guns a normal, non-controlled product, like they used to be, and should still be.
Then it is a moot point.
The only reason that this is even under discussion is that every single one of us has to fill out that stupid form and call in a background check whenver we buy a gun. We all complain about it every time.
Make it go away, and everybody is happy.
Roadwild17, that doesn't even make a lick of sense. Regardless of whether I think illegals should or should not have the RKBA, your last post is not real logical. Oh, I don't know, how about rape, assault, murder, etc?
And news for most of you. The violent criminal element amongst the illegal population ALREADY HAVE GUNS. And the law only hits the ones that obey it. Gee whiz, what a concept. You would think that maybe that might have come up on a gunboard before or something?
Do away with the Brady law. Do away with NICS. Do away with the 4473 form. Make guns a normal, non-controlled product, like they used to be, and should still be.
Then it is a moot point.
The only reason that this is even under discussion is that every single one of us has to fill out that stupid form and call in a background check whenver we buy a gun. We all complain about it every time.
Make it go away, and everybody is happy.
Roadwild17, that doesn't even make a lick of sense. Regardless of whether I think illegals should or should not have the RKBA, your last post is not real logical. Oh, I don't know, how about rape, assault, murder, etc?
And news for most of you. The violent criminal element amongst the illegal population ALREADY HAVE GUNS. And the law only hits the ones that obey it. Gee whiz, what a concept. You would think that maybe that might have come up on a gunboard before or something?
Nathanael_Greene
Member
So, Mohammad bin Al-Qaeda walks into your gun shop, and you learn (one way or another) that he's here illegally, on an expired student visa, and you're willing to sell him a gun?
rev214
Member
muddle ground??
how about they are allowed to purchase firearms (handles the unalienable right and gives the American businessman a buck), and then once they set forth outside the store they're immediately arrested, incarcerated, then deported (handles the illegal aspect)...
ah rats, the anti-profilers won't like any of this, though...
back to the philosophical drawing board...
how about they are allowed to purchase firearms (handles the unalienable right and gives the American businessman a buck), and then once they set forth outside the store they're immediately arrested, incarcerated, then deported (handles the illegal aspect)...
ah rats, the anti-profilers won't like any of this, though...
back to the philosophical drawing board...
WeedWhacker
Member
1. Declaration of Independence says: 'God-given', 'inalienable', 'inherant' rights. Doesn't say a thing about being a citizen.
2. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
Thoughts along this like have convinced me that it is wrong and immoral to bar felons who have served their full, just sentences the right to keep and bear arms, too. If they're somehow less than a citizen or still dangerous, then keep them locked up (in accordance with the law), else hands-off, gov't! :/
2. The whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing.
Thoughts along this like have convinced me that it is wrong and immoral to bar felons who have served their full, just sentences the right to keep and bear arms, too. If they're somehow less than a citizen or still dangerous, then keep them locked up (in accordance with the law), else hands-off, gov't! :/
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked