Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules

maybe-but some believe it could be a lot better and if Trump is elected, a better one will be passed. They think if this mediocre bill is passed now, that would prevent passage of a better one in the near future.

 

Or the truth is what Langford said, they don’t wanna solve this in an election year

 

you saw him commit crimes

really-what crimes were those and what statute?

 

I won't deny that is perhaps a motivation as well. it's common by both sides.

 

She was nominated by Obama - Imagine my surprise.

 

This is quite interesting. Nice (edit: I get it, but it’s not that) in the prohibited persons armor. Hunter Biden might crack it wide open, pun intended.

 

I have read what you post. I am asking you a simple question. It is a yes/no answer.

Pro 2nd people claim the 2nd confirms an inalienable right, do you agree that is what they claim?

 

The founders believed it is a natural right that was recognized by the second amendment. I can be lost through due process of law

 

So by “shall not be infringed” means “it can be infringed if a law says it can”

Surely the founding fathers just forgot the asterisk

 

this is a rather weak argument since the people who raise it generally don't support an individual constitutional right either. I also believe people have a right to assembly, a right to privacy, etc and you lose BOTH when you are imprisoned as well. However, I dont' see anti gun advocates pretending that those rights aren't really all that special. The founders also spoke constantly about life and liberty-both of which can be taken through due process of law. Is your argument that the second amendment doesn't really protect those who have not been adjudicated to lose the right because it doesn't apply to those who have?

 

1. Does natural = inalienable?

2. So, explain how a right granted/acknowledged by the CONSTITUTION can be impugned by WHAT due process of Law.

 

I have explained this as much as it needs to be explained. You are trying to pretend the second amendment isn't as extensive a ban as we know it is by trying to claim that it can be lost through due process of law. Now I don't believe the federal government has that proper power due to the tenth. I won't bother responding to anymore of what appears to be dilatory questions on the issue

 

You have it arse about TurtleDude. I say the 2nd is absolute, and the only way it can be stuffed around with is by a change to it, Constitutionally. Anything else is pretend rubbish. The 2nd declares an absolute right to bear arms, without condition or limitation attached at all.

Will you ever answer a question directly. You ignored these:

1. Does natural = inalienable?

2. So, explain how a right granted/acknowledged by the CONSTITUTION can be impugned by WHAT due process of Law. (To say you have explained it 'as much as it needs to be explained' is a tad on the nose Mate, and somewhat condescending. I am not dummy, and I want to know how a pregnant woman can 'by due process' become unpregnant. You can say it as much as you like, but she will remain pregnant. No amount of due process can muck around with an absolute.

 

The constitution is well understood to refer to people (anyone within our borders) and citizens. These two do not have the same rights and privileges. For example, only citizens can vote.

In fact, even though voting is the highest right we have, we still have to register to vote.

But, wait until someone suggests registration in THAT case!

 

Good to know.

 

Are you sure about that? And is it relevant?

I think her decision will likely be overturne

All of them? Got proof?

Sorry, just pointing out a ridiculous claim and an unfounded fear.

 

I have no idea of the late Ms. Feinstein's views on guns. And no one will ever have enough support to confiscate our guns with the exception of those who have misused that right in some manner, or obtained a gun illegally.

You righties get so worried about the dumbest things. This endless pearl-clutching and hand-wringing is not healthy.

 

Apology accepted.

 

Yes I'm sure about that, and it was certainly relevant in response to the post I made it for.

Why? Do you think they don't have 1st amendment or 4th amendment rights either?

 

If you are going to discuss a topic, a little basic research goes a long way. Were you unaware of the steady source of income illegal immigration gives the cartels? Did you know that these poor people have to fork over thousands of dollars to pass through cartel controlled territory? Did you hear about the wristband system the cartels were using so they would know who paid and who didn't? If you are asking for proof, that means you didn't know this.

 

Read Smith's indictment, both indictments.

Also, Mueller Report, Volume II

 

oh so you believe an indictment is proof of guilt.

 

YOu understand poor people with nothing can't just traverse 1000s of miles on their own? Are they carrying gallons of water on their backs? It's been bankrolled!!! And most of it are cartels using these people. Quite easy to claim asylum when you don't have to actually PROVE ANYTHING. You just have to say it, and the Biden Admin just lets them all in. The damage being done this past 4 years is a permanent restructuring of our society. Countries are emptying their prisons and sending these scumbags here. Care to guess what that does to our country? And Dems just keep letting them in. In what Universe do we need millions of single, poor, non english speaking males? Why do we need more people at all especially those uneducated, POOR, with no understanding of our culture, history or values? Look at how they're treating our police already? Look at how they're treating our people? We're not giving them enough?

 

The judge is well meaning but incorrect. Title 18 section 922 of the U.S. code makes it a felony for an illegal alien to possess a firearm or ammunition for one.

 

You missed the point of the judge's ruling. He's ruling that that law is unconstitutional.

So your point is circular.

What do you say about his ruling on the constitutionality of the law?