I'm going gun shopping this Saturday so I'm getting a big kick out....

Conservatives have no problem denying guns to illegals.

The Cognitive Dissonance has been conditioned out of them.

FTFC: "My take is that if you are an illegal immigrant have have no rights whatsoever. That does not mean that the people around you don't have to follow the law (just as you do) but you have no intrinsic rights."

And:"Sorry ese, the constitution only covers actual citizens of the US, not you."

I especially like the second one, ese.

knightofargh: Silly Jesus: Um, some of the requirements for the license/permit sort of require you to be a citizen (have a valid license..

Which license again?

Are you from the People's Republic of Illinois or the Democratic People's Republic of New Jersey?

Most places require a valid ID and SS number. I don't think that illegals have those. Not legal ones, anyway.

knightofargh: WTF?

Not actually a 2A issue in the first place. Ownership requirements are set down in GCA 1968 and have nothing to do with the Constitution.

?

It if involves infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms, then there's a 2A issue.

meanmutton: scarmig: I'm pretty sure one of the more brilliant parts of the Constitution is that it applies to "people" and not "citizens".

Words. They mean things.

100% yes.

interpretation of those words by the courts means more

The 2nd Amendment doesn't cover foreign militaries...

Dimensio: liam76: Strategeryz0r: All joking aside. How do illegals intend to legally acquire a gun to begin with? In order to purchase one you have to be run through the system, which requires a social security number, and pass a background check. They wouldn't show up in the system, ergo they would be denied ownership immediately.

The only way for them to acquire a weapon is with bogus information(illegal), or through a private sale(sometimes illegal, grey area depending on the state).

So no matter what, illegal entrance into the country aside, they're violating the law anyway.

I thought you only needed that for hand-guns?

Upon what occasion did you last purchase a long gun?

For dove season.

knightofargh: WTF?

Not actually a 2A issue in the first place. Ownership requirements are set down in GCA 1968 and have nothing to do with the Constitution.

Some would argue that the NFA of '34, the GCA of '68, etc. are all unconstitutional...

Jesus killed Godzilla with his AK47 when he tried to rise up out of the Delaware and eat George Washington who happened to be crossing it at the time.

Dimensio: What rationale justifies treating individuals who are present in the United States illegally as though they are criminals?

Game. Set. Match.

So, the 'Immigration' platform trumps the '2nd Amendment' platform....

How can I use this to my pinko-commie advantage?

lude: illegal alien = felony in progress

Misdemeanor, at worst.

In some states, you have to forfeit your gun if someone takes out a civil restraining order against you (you don't have to commit any infraction, misdemeanor or felony). Since illegal immigration is a civil misdemeanor (excluding reentering after deportation or attempting and/or reentering after being denied entry) it's asinine to think illegal immigrants (who committed a civil misdemeanor just by being here) should have a legal right to firearms guns when a citizen or legal resident who didn't do anything (aside from piss off an ex-girlfriend) can't.

liam76: scarmig: I'm pretty sure one of the more brilliant parts of the Constitution is that it applies to "people" and not "citizens".

Words. They mean things.

Who do you think "the people" refers to in the second?

Don't try explaining it to the brown lovers, they aroma of their unshaven arm pits cloud their thinking.

/liberals, treating darkies like pets since 1815

Wait so liberals are for guns now? This guy is protected under the constitution, but if he is in violation of state regulations regarding firearm ownership, which I am sure he is, then tough cookies.

titwrench: Dimensio: What rationale justifies treating individuals who are present in the United States illegally as though they are criminals?

Same rational when you find someone in your home illegally. It is a crime.

Yeah, see, that was kinda Dimensio's point, dontcha know.

The My Little Pony Killer: They must have cleared the comments. There's nothing there.

No, I think THIS is the derp tastic comment section
jk. they must have sanicleaned them out.

Callous: Strategeryz0r: liam76: Strategeryz0r: All joking aside. How do illegals intend to legally acquire a gun to begin with? In order to purchase one you have to be run through the system, which requires a social security number, and pass a background check. They wouldn't show up in the system, ergo they would be denied ownership immediately.

The only way for them to acquire a weapon is with bogus information(illegal), or through a private sale(sometimes illegal, grey area depending on the state).

So no matter what, illegal entrance into the country aside, they're violating the law anyway.

I thought you only needed that for hand-guns?

Varies from state to state. I know here, in Idaho, every time I've bought a rifle or shotgun they make a quick phone call to an FBI hotline, give them my information, and then hand me my weapon after the FBI says it's all good. Handguns have a waiting period, and I think a more thorough background check.

Again it depends on the state.

No it doesn't. NICS is federal and covers ALL firearm purchases conducted by an FFL. The so called "Gun Show Loophole" to NICS is just sales between private parties. the only exception to the rule is private parties from the same state.

Also there should be no such thing as a gun permits/licenses. What other Constitutional right requires a license and a background check every time you exercise it?

Never bought a gun out of state, so I just put the depends on state bit in there just in case my info didn't apply to everyone.

Good to know though.

Their here illegally breaking the law and nothing is done about it. They own guns illegally while here illegally and nothing is done about it I.E. East L.A. So why is this even an issue? Declare the U.S. a Mexico state already or a lawless nation and be done with it.

vudukungfu: The My Little Pony Killer: They must have cleared the comments. There's nothing there.

No, I think THIS is the derp tastic comment section
jk. they must have sanicleaned them out.

In any event, I see they're starting to trickle back in.

scarmig: I'm pretty sure one of the more brilliant parts of the Constitution is that it applies to "people" and not "citizens".

Words. They mean things.

so "We the people..." was actually written from the point of view of ALL PEOPLE. sure. not "Americans", or colonists or anything like that.

I'm certain the founding fathers, while taking part in slave trade and neglecting to provide women with rights, really thought they were representing all people. all of them. equally. 'cus that's what this is about.

Context. It means more.

(bonus: Derptastic reader comments)

Those can be found on the right side of every fark link.

Jubeebee: CruJones: Pretty sure the second amendment only covers citizens.

In theory, the Bill of Rights describes what the federal government cannot do. Citizenship status shouldn't have anything to do with it. The government can't quarter troops in your home; doesn't matter if your ancestors came over on the Mayflower or if you got here last week on a green card.

Potentially, but the only document that discusses natural rights is the Declaration of Independence, and those rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Whether or not the rights granted to the people from the government(being the laws of the land, not the people) only applies to citizens is up for debate, and the right to have bear arms isn't mentioned as a natural right, nor do I believe it applies to the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment, which explicitly states anyone in US jurisdiction is granted equal protection of the law.

Kar98: lude: illegal alien = felony in progress

Misdemeanor, at worst.

It depends on the circumstances that the person came over.
Enter illegally once - Civil misdemeanor.
Enter illegally after being deported or turned away - Criminal misdemeanor.
Attempt to illegally enter after being deported or turned away - Criminal misdemeanor.

Tack on extra charges for drug-running, sex trafficking, etc...

As was said in the comments, they are here illegally. Therefore, they are guilty of Possession of a firearm during the commission of a crime if they are armed.

Rincewind53: Listen, I've been told by countless Fark Rights Advocates that owning a gun is a basic right like free speech and anyone who tries to take it away is a fascist. So just as the government cannot take away the right to free speech from illegal immigrants, clearly they can't take away the right to own a gun.

Believe it or not, I think this post is full of TRUTH.

And in my searches for evidence of the 4th amendment applying to "illegals" (and a subsequent argument that if the 1st and 4th apply, why wouldn't the second) I came across this gem, which looks like the exact same situation a year ago.

Blog, but not my blog

/The argument was going to be one of bracketing, but since 3A challenges are so rare as to be non-existent I thought I'd go with the next subsequent amendment with relevant case law.

Web_Slinger: Not a constitutional scholar but doesn't "the People" the constitution refers to is "We the people of the United States" not "We the people of the Mexico, World, etc"?

You're right, but that supports his argument, not the argument against it. We're the People that happened to be in the United States of America, and we set up a government. There are people that are not of the United States of America, and the rights that we consider to be generic rights of The People includes those people. Most of the rights protected in the Amendments we believe to be rights that should belong to all mankind.

//Just reread Amendment 14th and got all pissed about my state's marriage amendment again. What part of equal protection under the law do these people think makes it okay to discriminate based on gender.

as to the "illegal immigrants" are not covered by the constitution

I will ask you two quesions

Why do they turn "cuban boat people" away from landing on the shores?

Why is gitmo not on American soil?


The answer is the same.. because once on physical USA soil they can claim certain rights.

Kar98: lude: illegal alien = felony in progress

Misdemeanor, at worst.


Possesion of a firearm while committing a criminal act. Great plan.

The best part is that`this may lead to codified laws that will allow further prosecution of illegals who are packing; who are even more likely to be deported; who face greater punishement if they come back.

Thanks Mr.Armed Illegal Guy

philthpig: scarmig: I'm pretty sure one of the more brilliant parts of the Constitution is that it applies to "people" and not "citizens".

Words. They mean things.

so "We the people..." was actually written from the point of view of ALL PEOPLE. sure. not "Americans", or colonists or anything like that.

I'm certain the founding fathers, while taking part in slave trade and neglecting to provide women with rights, really thought they were representing all people. all of them. equally. 'cus that's what this is about.

Context. It means more.


You're right. The context of the word "people" has generally progressed to a much broader and more equitable application since those days. I think that's a good thing.

So was some kind of trade made? Obama endorses gay marriage and liberals want everyone to get a gun?

Smart.

liam76: There was no legal way for him to own a handgun.

why not? some states allow you to purchase a gun without a permit and have no firearm registration.

Dimensio: What rationale justifies treating individuals who are present in the United States illegally as though they are criminals?

6/10 Too subtle.

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: And in my searches for evidence of the 4th amendment applying to "illegals" (and a subsequent argument that if the 1st and 4th apply, why wouldn't the second) I came across this gem, which looks like the exact same situation a year ago.

Riddle me this: why do all the amendments apply to felons who have served their time but not the 2nd?

I alone am best: Wait so liberals are for guns now? This guy is protected under the constitution, but if he is in violation of state regulations regarding firearm ownership, which I am sure he is, then tough cookies.

Did you say Liberal? Pardon me if I squeeze in between the herp and derp, but you can thank the NRA for limiting regulation of gun sales that allows immigrants to buy guns - and then making you afraid of armed immigrants & minorities so that you buy more guns too.

Guidette Frankentits: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: And in my searches for evidence of the 4th amendment applying to "illegals" (and a subsequent argument that if the 1st and 4th apply, why wouldn't the second) I came across this gem, which looks like the exact same situation a year ago.

Riddle me this: why do all the amendments apply to felons who have served their time but not the 2nd?

Because people are stupid, fearful, and inconsistent.

Headso: liam76: There was no legal way for him to own a handgun.

why not? some states allow you to purchase a gun without a permit and have no firearm registration.

People in ALL states are subject to Federal laws which require a licensed dealers to run a background check on buyers of handguns.

kvinesknows: as to the "illegal immigrants" are not covered by the constitution

I will ask you two quesions

Why do they turn "cuban boat people" away from landing on the shores?

Why is gitmo not on American soil?


The answer is the same.. because once on physical USA soil they can claim certain rights.

Why do they let Cuban boat people who make it to shore, stay but not Hatian boat people who make it to shore?

kvinesknows: as to the "illegal immigrants" are not covered by the constitution

I will ask you two quesions

Why do they turn "cuban boat people" away from landing on the shores?

Why is gitmo not on American soil?


The answer is the same.. because once on physical USA soil they can claim certain rights.

Gun Control Act of 1968.

Kar98: Headso: liam76: There was no legal way for him to own a handgun.

why not? some states allow you to purchase a gun without a permit and have no firearm registration.

People in ALL states are subject to Federal laws which require a licensed dealers to run a background check on buyers of handguns.

Licensed dealers.

I can hand out pistols to Jose all day long without a problem. I'm not a dealer.

Dexterman: The My Little Pony Killer: They must have cleared the comments. There's nothing there.

There will be again. You can't hold back the tide or the Derp.

I could see them, but they were all FB comments.

/I was logged in to FB at the time.
//NTAWWT

I'll back the lawyer for this guy: The right of survival and self defense is a Natural right, one possessed by every creature and is instinctive in every species that doesn't want to be extinct. That right is not changed by moving across artificial boundaries.

Human beings are defined by their ability to create and use tools. Just as a tiger has its claws and teeth, and a bear has its size and strength, a human uses his evolutionary advantage to further his individual survival. At this time, there is no better tool to defend against sudden violence than the firearm. Thus the Natural right of survival becomes the Human right to own and use a firearm, in self-defense.

Therefore, I conclude that the right to keep and bear arms is not merely a right of the citizens of the United States, but all people world-wide. Those governments that infringe upon that right of peaceable people to be able to defend themselves are committing a human rights violation.