DescentBB

So with the illegals in this country being allowed get drivers licenses and receive welfare benefits, I guess it is only proper that they be allowed rights under the 2nd amendment:

The 7th Circuit panel, however, ruled unanimously Thursday that the term "the people" in the Second Amendment's guarantee that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed also applies to those in the country illegally

I hope all you who condone people being allowed to sneak into this country are now all warm and snuggly over the fact they can arms themselves as well.

so long as the criminally insane can get guns, why not? The thing about that ruling is that it reinforces one of the ideals of US law. Our Bill of Rights is NOT limited(nor has it ever been) to those who are citizens, but ALL who reside here. Am I happy with this ruling? Hell, no, but then again, I'm at least consistent enough to not be happy with any ruling that fails to recognize the limits intended by the 2nd Amendment.

I'm actually really happy with this ruling.

It doesn't mean I'm happy with our pre-existing immigration system, and it doesn't mean I like the way background checks will be circumvented. But I absolutely agree that "the right to bear arms" extends beyond US citizens, to everyone who isn't already a proven violent/unstable criminal.

We're still having trouble with the proving NOT a violent/unstable criminal before we allow them to have a gun part. Background checks are still resisted by a large segment of the gun lover group, especially the NRA and they haven't offered up a better solution.

callmeslick wrote:[snip: lame comic]

Actual answer: C: the people. Who can then form a well-regulated militia on short notice ("the military force of the Province ought to be assembled, and an army of observation immediately formed" - Massachusetts Provincial Congress, March 30, 1775, calling on "the people" who already owned guns.)

This is not specifically designed to put guns in the hands of "any psychopath", nor merely in the hands of government-approved organized forces. It's designed to put guns in the hands of the populace in general. We should restrict psychopaths, but not restrict firearms only to government-approved and government-run organizations.

but, Lothar, it does not assume, nor even IMPLY, that everyone should be carrying at all times. In fact, the idea was to have them in central locations in established communities. The 2nd merely provides that ANYONE can, in the interest of public protection from attack, be allowed to carry in times of need. And, my point with the 'lame comic' was just that: so long as we have a seriously whacked interpretation of the 2nd, no one can whine(as Woody seemed to) that it is nuts for non-citizens to be left out. No one is left out of the right to due process, free speech, etc. In fact, I can see the next lawsuit coming from tourists who wish to carry arms while visiting.

callmeslick wrote:no one can whine(as Woody seemed to) that it is nuts for non-citizens to be left out

I think woody was making the opposite comment. It was really more a thinly-veiled complaint about the presence of non-citizens than about the second amendment.

slippery wrote:The 2nd merely provides that ANYONE can, in the interest of public protection from attack, be allowed to carry in times of need...

The second doesn't restrict to carrying only in times of need. Instead, because there will be times of need, the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the present (whether or not the present is a time of need) shall not be infringed. Anticipation is built in.

utterly indefensible reasoning, Lothar, based upon the times in which it was written, and how it was handled in practice(settled areas did not tolerate constant carry in public, EVER).

oh, and Lothar....I agree completely that Woody's issue was with illegal immigrants. However, the facts are that over 10 million of them are here, added to the tens of millions that were legalized by Ronald Reagan's decree in the 80s. Thus, they are a fait accompli. My point was that if you are going to cheer for the warped interpretation of the 2nd, don't whine when the courts apply the same broad applicability of that Amendment to all who reside here, citizen or not.

callmeslick wrote:utterly indefensible reasoning, Lothar

Not a road I care to go down with you again at this time, particularly since it's tangential.

More on point, the fact that SCOTUS has determined the 2nd amendment means you can carry a firearm for personal protection in many circumstances, and the fact that we generally allow anyone in the country the same "basic rights" as others even if we don't allow them citizen-specific rights like voting, means that anyone in the country (who isn't a known wackjob) can carry a firearm even if their actual presence here is illegal. I think it's very appropriate and consistent.

I see "the people" part being addressed well enough, but shouldn't there be equal, if not more, emphasis placed upon the "well regulated" part aswell?

Ferno wrote:I see "the people" part being addressed well enough, but shouldn't there be equal, if not more, emphasis placed upon the "well regulated" part aswell?

Parse the sentence carefully.

The "right" is given to the people. The "well regulated militia" is the reasoning -- it has to be something that can be formed from people whose right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.

yes I understand that.

but my interpretation is that the well regulated part is just as critical as the people part. because a militia can't operate at all without some kind of leadership. Otherwise it's just a bunch of vigilantes.

what I *do* consider well-regulated would be the Army Reserves

woodchip wrote:I hope all you who condone people being allowed to sneak into this country are now all warm and snuggly over the fact they can arms themselves as well.

Just as warm and snuggly over the fact that any dumb redneck can as well, so what's the difference?

What's equally hilarious is the implication that "illegals" might start a shootout.

Ferno wrote:What's equally hilarious is the implication that "illegals" might start a shootout.

So you haven't heard of the M-13 gang?

M-13, Crips, Bloods, Baltimore Corner boys, what difference does nation of origin make?

M-13 is a latino gang made up of a large number of illegals. Can you say the same for the others?

woodchip wrote:M-13 is a latino gang made up of a large number of illegals. Can you say the same for the others?

no, which is my point. The others are JUST as deadly, likely more so due to sheer numbers.

woodchip wrote:

Ferno wrote:What's equally hilarious is the implication that "illegals" might start a shootout.

So you haven't heard of the M-13 gang?

yeah because one gang made up of Latinos is indicative of all Latinos.

Stereotyping FTW.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:M-13 is a latino gang made up of a large number of illegals. Can you say the same for the others?

no, which is my point. The others are JUST as deadly, likely more so due to sheer numbers.

I was replying to ferno's post of that it was hilarious that illegals might start a shoot out. I guess you just didn't understand my reply (nor it seems does ferno)