Should Illegal Immigrants Be allowed RKBA?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Spreading liberty is a great idea. Depends on how. And one shouldn't deceive oneself about what the other guy's notion of "liberty" really is.

Manifest Destiny didn't die, it just went corporate.
 
I wasn't defending or attacking Manifest Destiny, then or now. I simply was using it to suggest that early U.S. citizens did want to expand liberty beyond U.S. borders.

You said the Founders didn't think of themselves as missionaries of liberty. I suggested something that *might* mean you were wrong -- theirs sons thought they were missionaries of liberty ... apple ... tree.

The question is whether Manifest Destiny grew out of the Revolution/Founding or whether it resulted from something unrelated that occurerd in the early 19th century -- I don't know what that something else would have been, so I'm drawn back to the Founding as its philosophical source of MD.
 
Let's try putting the shoe on the other foot.

If you move illegally to Mexico, or better yet a country that allows its citizens to own firearms, do you think you will allowed the RKBA?

Law of Nature says you have the right to self defense, but I'm willing to bet that there is not a single country on the planet that allows illegal aliens to carry or even own firearms.

And do you know why that is? Because it doesn't make sense to allow armed trespassers onto one's land. It doesn't matter if we're talking about an individual's back yard or the entire landmass of a sovereign state. Trespassers have no rights on land they are trespassing on, and armed trespassing, by definition is an INVASION. It doesn't make sense to pass laws that facilitate such an event.

Preservation of one's life is somthing everyone has a right to, on this point the Law of Nature trumps all. Society is not based on the Law of Nature, however. Society is based on the Law of Man, which is specifically (in the case of the USA) designed to protect the CITIZEN. There is no reason what-so-ever for our laws to protect illegal residents. There is certainly no reason for our laws to allow illegal residents to become INVADERS with a single legalized purchase.

The pro-illegals out there will state the obvious, that the Law of Nature trumps all; and to them I say "That's true, but the Law of Man is enforced by men, men who want to preserve more than just their lives, but their WAY OF LIVING. And when push comes to shove, those men and their weapons have the Law of Nature to back up the Law of Man".

Illegals want guns, they can get them, just not through legal mean. Ya takes your chances and you do your time. It's a shame we can't deter them with more than catch and release...oh wait, Law of Nature says we can :)
 
Well, I'm persuaded then. I suppose we just need to admit that the Brady Bill/NICS/4473 and prohibitive gun laws in general are good things. :)
 
I wasn't defending or attacking Manifest Destiny, then or now. I simply was using it to suggest that early U.S. citizens did want to expand liberty beyond U.S. borders.
Click to expand...

Some may have indeed had that desire, but for me the issue here is who is "covered" by RKBA within our own national borders. I consider illegal aliens to be owed basic legal protections, not entitled to more expansive privileges and entitlements. Illegal aliens are gatecrashers, trespassers, and squatters, often identity thieves. No sane society would offer them the means to oppress and intimidate U.S. citizens. We disarm people who have shown they cannot live within civilized society, and this case that means our society, in obedience to our laws.
 
longeyes: but for me the issue here is who is "covered" by RKBA within our own national borders.
Click to expand...
I think you're confusing the 2nd and the RKBA.

I'm not really disagreeing with you, BTW, just trying to sort through it all.

I think we might be looking at the wrong issue with all this talk about the 2nd. The question is neither whether all humans have the RKBA (they do), nor whether the 2nd covers non-citizens (questionable), but whether a sovereign nation has the rightful power to forbid the transfer of arms to invaders, whether the invaders be troops or criminals.

I doubt that anyone would have a problem with forbidding arms sales to an organized invasion (troops) -- I'm interested in how an unorganized invasion (illegals) is different.

I haven't made up my mind. I'm listening to both sides. If you pro-guns-to illegal people convince me that an unorganized invasion is different from an organized one, and I might move to your side.
 
Some may have indeed had that desire, but for me the issue here is who is "covered" by RKBA within our own national borders...
Click to expand...

Here is the point where we are talking past each other: The Second Amendment acknowledges an inherent right of all people to be armed, but it only effectively applies to U.S. citizens because only the U.S. acknowledges this right.

As a metaphor; The U.S. legally proclaims that the sky is blue. No other country acknowledges this fact. Therfore, people who say the sky is blue in other countries are arrested and throw in jail. This does (should) not happen in the U.S.

None of this proclaiming, in the U.S. or elsewhere, changes the fact that the sky is blue. That is pre-ordained by Law of Nature. :)
 
I consider illegal aliens to be owed basic legal protections, not entitled to more expansive privileges and entitlements.
Click to expand...

I agree. I just disagree on what is considered a "right" vs a "privilege".

Illegal aliens are gatecrashers, trespassers, and squatters, often identity thieves.
Click to expand...

If so, then arrest them for being illegal immigrants, tresspassers, squatters and identity thieves. No arguement there.
 
RKBA is God-given and universal.

If person is illegally in this country it is illegal. To ask whether that person has RKBA is moot. To ask whether that person should be able to buy a firearm is moot.

Standing on US soil and breathing the air without our permission is grounds for arrest, incarceration, deportation, and confiscation of any weapons.

I don't care if the person is Mexican, Cuban, Vietnamise, Chinese, Croatian, Saudi, Israeli, Iraqi...
 
cuchulainn said:
If you pro-guns-to illegal people convince me that an unorganized invasion is different from an organized one, and I might move to your side.
Click to expand...

What constitutes an invasion? If the ongoing immigration were “legal,” would it be any less an “invasion” in your eyes?

For what it’s worth, I’m not “pro-guns-to-illegals” (or pro-“illegal” immigration for that matter), but then I’m not pro-gravity either.

~G. Fink
 
I doubt that anyone would have a problem with forbidding arms sales to an organized invasion (troops) -- I'm interested in how an unorganized invasion (illegals) is different.

I haven't made up my mind. I'm listening to both sides. If you pro-guns-to illegal people convince me that an unorganized invasion is different from an organized one, and I might move to your side.
Click to expand...

Can there be any doubt that leadership in the illegal alien "invasion" has put itself in opposition to the U.S. government, sovereignty, and citizens? Certainly the idea has spread, in their political ranks, that this land is their land, that they're aren't illegal, and they're not going to leave, no matter what. Unorganized maybe, illegals definitely, dangerous most probably--if armed.
 
Can there be any doubt that leadership in the illegal alien "invasion" has put itself in opposition to the U.S. government, sovereignty, and citizens? Certainly the idea has spread, in their political ranks, that this land is their land, that they're aren't illegal, and they're not going to leave, no matter what. Unorganized maybe, illegals definitely, dangerous most probably--if armed.
Click to expand...

I do not doubt that there is an organized "invasion". The solution is to secure the border, not to declare RKBA is a privilege.
 
As long as a person is not actively committing a crime they should have RKBA. But the instant they start a criminal action until they stop they have no right to self defense.

Otherwise the rapist could claim self defense if he shot the victim as she fought back. Or the mugger could shoot a cop chasing him and claim self defense.

Illegal immigrants break the law as soon as they step foot on the soil of the US of A and they do not stop breaking the law until they leave US territory. Simple as that.
 
Last edited:
I think that we're going round in circles at this point.

Most people here are pro soverign state, anti illigal immigration (from what I've gathered)

Everyone is pro RKBA for all us citizens, most are pro RKBA as a natural right of mankind.

Some people have pointed out that if RKBA was totally unrestricted it would be a moot point, I tend to agree with them. If It is illigal for an individual to be in a country, it doesn't matter if they are buying a cheeseburger or a tec-9, if their presence is illigal, then any action they engage in is illigal as well.

The problem with that is that any individual who has shown a wanton disregard for the laws of their host nation, poses a real threat to the life liberty etct. of the people of that country. I would argue that the same individual poses an equal hazard to the citizenry wether he is armed or unarmed in the damage that he does to the infrastructure of america by living here, working here, being educated here, taking helthcare here. etc.

An illigal alien is not a member of the militia of the united states of america, he cannot be called upon to serve in the national defence, he owes no aliegiance to the citizenry of our country and is under no obligation to stand up for the constitution or the bill of rights.

His posession of arms represents the worst kind of power, power without responsibility.

all that being said, if we kick them out, its no longer an issue. They have a right to defend themselves, there nation, and their home. NONE of which are here in the US.

I'll just get down off of my soapbox now....
 
No! They are here illegally! Sheesh. Why should anyone become a citizen if we're just going to hand over all the rights and privileges anyway?
 
Should they be allowed RKBA?

Of course they should. Problem arises when a little thing called law comes into play. If the law states that all my guns are to be taken away and I may never own them again, that same law would say that these people are lawbreakers and never will own guns. If I can't rest my fears on the Bill of Rights, why the hell should people that aren't even legal citizens?

So the question; should they be allowed RKBA? Yes, but
Should they be allowed to legally own firearms? Not only no but, HELL no!
 
So the question; should they be allowed RKBA? Yes, but
Should they be allowed to legally own firearms? Not only no but, HELL no!
Click to expand...

*blink*
What? Did you read that before you posted it?

Or are you suggesting, as you have posted, that exercising inherant human rights should be against the law? "Molon Labe!" indeed?
 
Well, the Constitution does apply to both citizens and non-citizens. That is why they could not stop the illegals from their May Day rally. Unfortunately, I believe that are entitled to purchase own and use firearms. However as it is the law does not allow that. I also, believe that if they are here as illegals from an enemy state then they could pose a national security risk and thus should not have the right to bear arms.

IE, North Korean illegal immigrant who refuses to apply for assylum=no gun'
Canadian= should be able to own a gun
 
I repeat - they *do not* have the right to own guns in my country unless they are here playing by my rules. Men from every generation in my family have fought and sometimes died for the rights we enjoy.
You don't walk into my country and claim rights you haven't earned.
Wake up people, this is an invasion.


Biker
 
You're born with the Rights you can take and hold. The doctor didn't hand me a shotgun when I popped out the damn womb. You're born with nothing but the will to survive.

Biker
 
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