There is a difference between a non-citizen and a criminal.Except for voting and holding certain offices, where does the Constitution deny rights to non-citizens?
Do not many of us argue that most rights are God given, that they are not granted by government?
That view is incompatible with the denial of the right to anyone, regardless of immigration status.No I don't believe rights are god given, you have rights because you exist.
It's hardly a philisophical debate. The Founding Fathers wrote of inalienable rights, endowed by a creator. Our entire system of government is based on what they set up.That is a philosophical debate and not at all related to the pragmatism required to have a functioning country.
Must have touched a nerve.What an intellectually dishonest display of mental midgetry.
Rights only for white people? Wow, ok. Haven't seen that on INGO for a while.
Is the right to bear arms God-given or not?
Can a felon lose his God given rights?
Serious question.
That view is incompatible with the denial of the right to anyone, regardless of immigration status.
It's hardly a philisophical debate. The Founding Fathers wrote of inalienable rights, endowed by a creator. Our entire system of government is based on what they set up.
Must have touched a nerve.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I've seen it said on INGO that the right to bear arms and self-defense is God-given. If that is true, it cannot apply only to US citizens. If it is not true, then you must believe that the Constitution grants you the right as a citizen, instead of protecting a pre-existing right given by God to all people.
The constitution is a living document. These rulings affect our constitutional rights, just as the unconstitutional gun laws and agencies.
The GCA prohibited felons. The Brady bill put in background checks. Other than that, everything else they done was to limit rights of law abiding citizens.
This new ruling was wrongly ruled based on other rulings for citizens, but is a ruling in favor of illegal non citizens. And it's a democratic ruling, bought to you by the party that pushed the gun control acts.
Why do they want to arm illegals?
Then why are rights allowed to be suspended or permanently taken away for felons? God make an exception for felons? What is given by God can not be removed by man."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I've seen it said on INGO that the right to bear arms and self-defense is God-given. If that is true, it cannot apply only to US citizens. If it is not true, then you must believe that the Constitution grants you the right as a citizen, instead of protecting a pre-existing right given by God to all people.
We were talking about the original thoughts of the founders. No I don't believe rights are god given, you have rights because you exist.
What is allegedly given by God is taken by man ever waking minute of the day, here in the US and all over the world. Felon or not. And God is not an ICE agent.Then why are rights allowed to be suspended or permanently taken away for felons? God make an exception for felons? What is given by God can not be removed by man.
You've already established that you do not believe that rights are God-given, as the Founding Fathers intended. No further discussion with you is necessary on the matter. This wall of text is simply chaff, I said nothing about favoring illegals over citizens. I was making one single and solitary point about 2nd Amendment "absolutists." Maybe a meme will help.Alright, now I have a moment to continue.
Why is it that you are focusing on an illegals rights and not on the rights of your fellow countrymen? Mind you, race does not come into play here at all, simply a matter of nationality.
And what of my rights as a proper person residing in the country I am a citizen of?
Do I not also have a right to defend myself from foreign invaders?
Why are we so stuck on acknowledging the rights of the invader and ignoring the right to defense that you(the citizen) and I have?
Do we owe these barbarians at the gate something merely by virtue of them existing?
Are they somehow better than us for breaking our laws?
Are we to be cowed and extend more and more of our stolen tax dollars to waste on these cowards who will not fight for their rights in their own homeland?
Are they really equal to someone who would stand and fight against tyranny?
Are they really even fleeing a cartel controlled government or are they coming for the free stuff?
I have already said in this thread that people who come through legal channels should have protections, but not those of a true citizen. Anyone coming illegally from mexico should be recorded in some way and sent back across to the city furthest south in their country. If I had it my way, the second time they tried they would leave in an urn.
All of this is also to say that allowing all of these people in without citizenship creates a sub class that can be used as cheap and even slave labor on American soil once again. It's already being done and has for decades.
You're unfortunately missing the point of the wall of text, but I agree that further discussion is unnecessary and is unlikely to be productive in any way.You've already established that you do not believe that rights are God-given, as the Founding Fathers intended. No further discussion with you is necessary on the matter. This wall of text is simply chaff, I said nothing about favoring illegals over citizens. I was making one single and solitary point about 2nd Amendment "absolutists." Maybe a meme will help.
View attachment 341096