US Egg Posted March 18 Posted March 18 (edited) Gracias por las armas! Will they get them for free too? Edited March 18 by US Egg
daz28 Posted March 18 Posted March 18 9 minutes ago, US Egg said: Gracias por las armas! Will they get them for free too? There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully. Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing.
LeviF Posted March 20 Posted March 20 On 3/18/2024 at 4:54 PM, daz28 said: There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully. Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing. This post gave me cancer. “The people” does not include illegals. “Our posterity” does not include illegals. As much of a disaster as the reconstruction amendments were/are, we can hardly blame the 14th for this one, since the language of the 2nd makes it very clear it is for citizens only, thereby rendering it not a “liberty” that a State has a duty to leave to every “person.” 2
daz28 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 1 hour ago, LeviF said: This post gave me cancer. “The people” does not include illegals. “Our posterity” does not include illegals. As much of a disaster as the reconstruction amendments were/are, we can hardly blame the 14th for this one, since the language of the 2nd makes it very clear it is for citizens only, thereby rendering it not a “liberty” that a State has a duty to leave to every “person.” I mean you and me might think that, but legal documents have legal definitions. "The people" is EXACTLY the language used in the 2nd Amendment, no matter how bad you wished it said citizens. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The Frankish Reich Posted March 20 Posted March 20 On 3/18/2024 at 2:54 PM, daz28 said: There is a misconception that the U.S. Constitution applies only to U.S. citizens. Some passages and phrases in our laws explicitly state only “citizens” are afforded certain rights, such as the right to vote. When the terms “resident” or “person” is used instead of citizen, the rights and privileges afforded are extended to protect citizens and non-citizens alike. Moreover, protections under the 14th Amendment ensure that no particular group is discriminated against unlawfully. Do I like it? No, but either you follow the Constitution on everything or nothing. Excellent point. Now, for the 2nd Amendment ... that's one of the "right of the people" ones. Traditionally there's been a lot of confusion about that. When it comes to the 4th Amendment's prohibition on illegal search and seizure, courts have treated "the people" as something that extends to citizens, permanent residents, and other aliens alike. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, we've always treated non-permanent resident aliens differently; they don't have a right to bear arms. Until now? [this is the mess that the Supreme Court decisions have created ... no aliens in the militia, hence no right to bear arms for aliens. At least that's how it should have been decided]
daz28 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 1 minute ago, The Frankish Reich said: Excellent point. Now, for the 2nd Amendment ... that's one of the "right of the people" ones. Traditionally there's been a lot of confusion about that. When it comes to the 4th Amendment's prohibition on illegal search and seizure, courts have treated "the people" as something that extends to citizens, permanent residents, and other aliens alike. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, we've always treated non-permanent resident aliens differently; they don't have a right to bear arms. Until now? [this is the mess that the Supreme Court decisions have created ... no aliens in the militia, hence no right to bear arms for aliens. At least that's how it should have been decided] To me this seems to point to the notion that the militia and right to bear arms ARE separate ideas, and that should be a semicolon not a comma. Clerical error. I don't expect the SCOTUS will notice that, though. Dumbest group I've ever seen. 1 1
Tommy Callahan Posted March 20 Posted March 20 3 hours ago, daz28 said: To me this seems to point to the notion that the militia and right to bear arms ARE separate ideas, and that should be a semicolon not a comma. Clerical error. I don't expect the SCOTUS will notice that, though. Dumbest group I've ever seen. 200 years of case law and a few supreme courts disagree with your parroted opinion.. But another anti second shows it's stripes 1
daz28 Posted March 20 Posted March 20 2 minutes ago, Tommy Callahan said: 200 years of case law and a few supreme courts disagree with your parroted opinion.. But another anti second shows it's stripes I guess this means what ya'll call illegals can be militia too then, right? Can't have it both ways. Unless you're ultra magga, and the logic gets warped to suit. 1
LeviF Posted March 20 Posted March 20 7 hours ago, daz28 said: I mean you and me might think that, but legal documents have legal definitions. "The people" is EXACTLY the language used in the 2nd Amendment, no matter how bad you wished it said citizens. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. But that’s what I’m saying. “The people” has never meant anything but “citizens of the United States” in the context of the Constitution. You essentially believe that “the people” and “persons” means the same thing, though any fifth grader who has read any 18th century political literature can easily tell you otherwise. 1
Gregg Posted March 20 Posted March 20 Go Ron. https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/florida-gov-ron-desantis-says-he-ll-send-haitian-migrants-to-martha-s-vineyard/ar-BB1kdptg?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=37d82422f69848d4b07bc24b1669eaab&ei=9
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 20 Posted March 20 6 minutes ago, Gregg said: Go Ron. https://www.msn.com/en-us/travel/news/florida-gov-ron-desantis-says-he-ll-send-haitian-migrants-to-martha-s-vineyard/ar-BB1kdptg?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=DCTS&cvid=37d82422f69848d4b07bc24b1669eaab&ei=9 To avoid Florida, Biden will initiate transportation of Haitians to Mexican border crossing points or directly to the US while leaving American citizens behind to fend for themselves. And I'm not joking. Rather thinking of the dumbest and most absurd thing possible and predicting these clowns will do it.
BillsFanNC Posted March 20 Author Posted March 20 4 hours ago, Tommy Callahan said: Are illegals citizens? It's moronic and causing victims for cops not to be able to call ice and have criminals deported. You really don't grasp the topics you rant about. Like the others you share the same script with Undocumented Americans. 1
All_Pro_Bills Posted March 20 Posted March 20 3 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Undocumented Americans. What I absolutely love about the term "undocumented" is they make it sound like some sort of clerical error. Not breaking and avoiding customs and immigration law. What's next? Calling bank robberies undocumented depositor withdrawals? Rapists? Undocumented sex partners Car jackers? Undocumented vehicle owners. 4
Recommended Posts