Bro, they gonna get guns if they want them either way.
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
yes they will be armed
- Thread starter mosin46
- Start date
Bro, they gonna get guns if they want them either way.
But what was he doing ON Scott in the first place? I mean, great, it didn't cost anything, it was free.
Never mind, I don't really want to know.
Last edited:
Just how are these rights protected? It damn sure isn't a force field around each person. It's our laws that ensure protection of them.
Doubt me, then what about the tens of millions slaughtered by brutal tyrants? They had your fundamental rights, how did that work out?
Rights are protected by those putting their lives on the line to protect them.
You're not a veteran are you?
In reality, your argument above counters your earlier stated position. Take some time to logically progress through your post and maybe you will find it...
re: trump-supported him,still do. i believe he was nieve to the extent of or,more likely,who was a dedicated player. he surrounded himself with dedicated enemies. i will say that he should have know much of that and done better research into who he was letting get close. he was a NYC business guy. he must have had years of experience dealing with corrupt pols as that's all there is in any big city. if he gets back in maybe he will be aggressively careful and fully vet those he shares influence & power with.
re: 2A-the thought that all,esp those in this mapped area called the US,have inalienable rights is just BS. rights are codified in law here. they are inalienable for those that are citizens of said geography which is mapped. does not say,nor should it,say anything about any non US citizens rights here or anywhere. those rights are or have been protected by consent and force. we all see force being used to try and take them in law and in fact by force. the idea that an illegal entry is only a misdemeanor may be true,don't know. IMHO it is same thing as a B&E,which is a felony. they should be resisted with deadly force just like someone breaking into your home. the rules only count if everybody is playing by them. manipulating and "interpreting" the rules is a long standing con game which we,like on here,are losing. an invading army has no "rights".
re: 2A-the thought that all,esp those in this mapped area called the US,have inalienable rights is just BS. rights are codified in law here. they are inalienable for those that are citizens of said geography which is mapped. does not say,nor should it,say anything about any non US citizens rights here or anywhere. those rights are or have been protected by consent and force. we all see force being used to try and take them in law and in fact by force. the idea that an illegal entry is only a misdemeanor may be true,don't know. IMHO it is same thing as a B&E,which is a felony. they should be resisted with deadly force just like someone breaking into your home. the rules only count if everybody is playing by them. manipulating and "interpreting" the rules is a long standing con game which we,like on here,are losing. an invading army has no "rights".
You're funny. I am sure you won't be here long.
Laws protect people.
yep gun free zones protect peopel too huh? 
A person breaking into your home has zero inalienable rights. A person breaking into your home armed has less than zero inalienable rights.
The Leftist/globalist fuckers think that Americans are so fucking dumb.
Armed invaders landing on our shores or coming over the borders would be an obvious invasion by anyone's definition. Allowing them to come over unarmed and then arming them once they're in place is still an armed invasion.
I bet the hi-point sales people just got boners with this ruling.
That's the concept isn't it sparky, laws do protect people?You're funny. I am sure you won't be here long.
Laws protect people.
Funny how the neanderthals cherry pick the extreme to make a point, every single time.
History has proven without law, chaos ensues.
BTW, don't quit your day job as cart boy at Walmart because you suck as a clairvoyant.
At first they were written to protect people. Now they are used too enslave to the system, and jail or kill those who speak out. The sleeping dog is now awake and the look on his face with teeth showing, a low growl, and tail waging, is a conflicting sign to many, but not all.Laws protect people.
Speaking of cherry picking laws...
Somewhere in their oath and job description, police officers are supposed to prevent crime and apprehend people committing illegal acts when they witness it/them. Except, according to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, illegal aliens,
Court order puts Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants who cross illegally back on hold
A federal appeals court late Tuesday issued an order that again prevents Texas from arresting migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally, hours after the Supreme Court allowed the strict new…
www.kxan.com
Bunch of fucking bullshit. Those criminals, the judges, need to be arrested and stuck in the same jail cells with those nose picking, bean farting, hating, racist, pedophile illegals.
Last edited:
Agreed. The concept of the Constitution was set to define the limitation of Federal laws. No, 250 years later, we are witnessing lawfare, the corruption of our system using laws, almost all enacted in individual states. Gun free zones have zero to do with the Feds, everything to do with state and local governments.Speaking of cherry picking laws...
Somewhere in their oath and job description, police officers are supposed to prevent crime and apprehend people committing illegal acts when they witness it/them. Except, according to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, illegal aliens,
Court order puts Texas law allowing police to arrest migrants who cross illegally back on hold
A federal appeals court late Tuesday issued an order that again prevents Texas from arresting migrants suspected of entering the U.S. illegally, hours after the Supreme Court allowed the strict new…
Criminals don't obey the law, never have.
Criminal laws only protect when they are enforced, and they aren't.
Our founders would have been shooting years ago.
Personally, I think we are very close to watching the start of it.
I see 45 listing for claivoyant on jobs.com. Apparently everyone is hiring them right now.
BTW. Reading comprehension is fundamental to understanding what you read.
ABTW. Clairvoyant is one who claims to be able to predict the future like you are. Not someone who read some stuff and actually understood it.
AABTW. Now you should look up fundamental because you don't know what that one means either.
Laws protect people.
You have another fundamental misunderstanding.
What, its not laws and protection for people now? Didn't you tell me I was wrong when I told you it was limitations on government?
A judge has just ruled that just having your feet on USA soil is the only qualification to the ownership/possession of a firearm and y'all are pissed?
How about you start emailing/ calling the GOA, nra, and your representative to eliminate the ATF on the basis of this ruling.
We can deal with the illegals and deporting them. Closing the borders and then you don't have to worry about the illegal immigrants and the ATF.
Y'all are so distracted by the shining objects (illegals ) that you are not seeing how it can be used in our favor.
Wake up and quit being distracted.
How about you start emailing/ calling the GOA, nra, and your representative to eliminate the ATF on the basis of this ruling.
We can deal with the illegals and deporting them. Closing the borders and then you don't have to worry about the illegal immigrants and the ATF.
Y'all are so distracted by the shining objects (illegals ) that you are not seeing how it can be used in our favor.
Wake up and quit being distracted.
You talk in circles. The overall big picture is beyond you.What, its not laws and protection for people now? Didn't you tell me I was wrong when I told you it was limitations on government?
irishqueen10527🇮🇪🇮🇪☘️☘️ on GETTR : If this doesn't make your blood boil.....😡😡
If this doesn't make your blood boil.....😡😡
Yet if I carry a gun across the illinois state line, I am illegal. Makes your head spin.
I lost my stash of firearms in that tragic boat accident.
Lets be real here for a second; if you have to use this line, it's time to use them, not hide them
Endowed by our creator…
First, you have to believe in God to understand this. The ones who don’t, believe man is the highest power and have nothing to believe other than man made laws. That’s the crux of the issue.
First, you have to believe in God to understand this. The ones who don’t, believe man is the highest power and have nothing to believe other than man made laws. That’s the crux of the issue.
We can discuss religious philosophy when we aren't being invaded by millions.
Calm down. They are already armed.
This is the court baiting real 2A advocates.
Butter Fudds are gonna be all over this one.
We’re discussing human rights not laws of the land.
You either believe the rights are God given or you don’t. The BOR&Constitution just spell it out and restrict the government from infringing on said rights.
The rights are yours at birth, given by God, no matter your country of birth or citizenship status. We’re just the only country that has recognized that in our founding documents.
Wanting your invaders to be armed is insane. Period.
If you mean what I think you mean, we agree.
I mean we are being invaded, because we reject God and embrace gods.
I don’t want invaders. That’s an Immigration Law issue and not a rights issue. Rights, like beliefs, aren’t conditional.
Going by what most are saying, why would an immigration law not be a rights issue just like guns? If they should have the right to own a gun, why don't they have the right to be in America?
God has nothing to do with it. Being spineless does. Because this entire country has sleepwalked for decades. I don't see any godly warriors doing a damn thing. In fact I see Christians doing the opposite and helping our oppressors or invaders.
Beliefs aren't conditional? I take it you don't study history much lol.
Rights are a human made concept regardless of what you believe or not. Human beings can't even agree on what constitutes a "right".
People invading someone else's nation do not have "rights" except the right to be fought back against.
They will say that isn't the same. And I understand their thought process. I don't agree with it, but I understand.
I think for you and I a closer analogy would be an illegal is in your house raping your child, but they still have a god given right to defend themselves from you. Nonsense.
Of course everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family. But that only applies if it's through no fault of their own. You don't get to do the crazy fucked up thing then when someone fights back claim it's your god given right to protect yourself from your would be victim.
This matches my view.
This puts us closer to where U.S. rights should be recognized and reel back some of those restrictions on what should be our actual firearm rights. Yes, it would appear to somehow be "bad" because it evidently allows illegal immigrants some sort of "benefit" but I still see it that if someone is here illegally, they are attempting immigration, I would also argue that the federal government actually has power and jurisdiction explicitly laid out to legally control immigration spelled out in the Constitution. They just need to actually enforce and implement that power and whether these illegals might actually be armed is a moot point, because they should actually be restricted and rounded up anyway, thus unable to cause any problem with a theoretical firearm they might be carrying, if federal immigration enforcers were doing a job they can and should be tasked to do.
Back to my original comment in this thread, this is fine, but they are doing more every day to restrict rights for law-abiding gun owners in Illinois. Illinois residents can't buy semi automatic rifles anymore. Go look at bill hb3239 and tell me you're fine with the illegals getting a free pass. I assure you that qualification will not apply to us. There's plenty of examples of double standards we can post as proof.
I think this is the direction they are headed since they are wanting to allow illegals as law enforcement. They need someone to take the guns from the people.
I do not know if this guy was claiming asylum, because the judge said he was here illegally. I think once there is an asylum application, the applicant is no longer here illegally. They even get a work permit.
Congress needs to fix this, but they refuse because fixing it would harm Trump's election bid. So we will get no relief until 2025, at the earliest.
The judge is left wing. Undoubtedly, she wanted to do this in a sarcastic way, but I invite all of you to read the opinion. It is spot on. The law on this issue made it easy for this left wing judge to create an issue that she hoped would undermine Second Amendment law.
The Founders would not have recognized our desire to disarm persons coming into the country. There was no such thing as illegally entering the United States back then. Indeed, that was not even a thing until the twentieth century. Many of the Founders were born elsewhere (e.g., Alexander Hamilton), and all of them had been subjects of a foreign country (mostly England).
The Constitution uses the word "citizen" lots of times. I mean, it appears on the first page, in the first Article, section 2. It is used for qualifications for office and for federal court jurisdiction. It is used for Article IV privileges and immunities. The Founders knew what it meant. They knew how to use that word where they thought it was appropriate. For the bill of rights, however, they did not limit the protections to citizens. The Founders chose "the people" instead. It has to mean something different than citizen.
We always talk about "law abiding citizen," but that is not what the Second Amendment says.
But YOU will be disarmed………..
I agree with you, but want to note two things.
(1) This judge was not really trying to recognize the original intent of the Second Amendment. She did so in the hope of eventually undermining the Second Amendment by harnessing the anger over the flood of aliens entering the country. Nevertheless, the opinion is a good one - read it if you have not.
(2) The Constitution does give Congress the power to legally control immigration. Over half a century ago, though, they chose to have a welcoming asylum process. That was fine when used as intended. It is now an overloaded system with a six year wait for a hearing. Congress refuses to fix it because doing so would harm Trump's chances in November. Most Americans are ignorant that the proposals that they think will fix it violate federal law (asylum law) and have already been tried by the Trump Administration and the Biden Administration but struck down by the courts. I only know this myself because I started reading some of the court opinions after I saw a Ninth Circuit judge write that the Biden asylum ban was the Trump policy with phone app. That caught my attention. Once I started reading about what was really going on, and not the Fox News or CNN version of what is going on, the solution was obvious. Congress must change the asylum procedure. But they won't. At least not until after the election. So we are stuck with this unabated until 2025.
My beliefs aren’t conditional.
Don’t misconstrue my view of rights as believing that the illegals should be here. I don’t want them here and believe they should be deported. Our government has failed the citizens.
I have a feeling Illinois's assault weapon ban will be short lived due to the current makeup of the Supreme Court.
this gets very fractured and warped. i really try to stay away from religious discussion,here and everywhere. it just gets into emotional,irrational screaming. but.... the whole rights came from god thing is just too much for me. start with borders,language and culture as the basis of what is known as a country. a country is defined and identified by borders. usually having the same culture and language that defines it's beliefs,behaviors and interactions. laws are usually made. who makes them? depends on the system but,yes,usually the more powerful or the loudest. they can include enumeration of rights which are assured by the group's agreement. when the powerful in a society transgress those perceived rights historically there is often revolution,as there was here in no.am. when individuals transgress,there is crime that should be addressed by the group or it's chosen reps. the idea that some mythical being gave those rights and will protect the believers is a historical farce. ask the jews in '40s poland,the muslims in baghdad in the 13th century,germans during the 30 years war etc etc. the only thing religion has done is give people the right to burn others at the stake. religion can and does serve as a reference point for shared values but that is only workable by human mutual consent. modern progressivism is nothing more than a religion without reference to a "god'. when there is no broad consensus in a society,no mass agreement in principals as we have here now,then you get what is coming. that is the reordering of society by force,panic,ignorance,stupidity or fraud.
Uncle Ted said it best. Full disclosure, he is LEO as well as a musician (deputy sheriff in Genesee County, MIchigan.)
The problem with this is that if the invasion of illegals was white or some other shade of white, that judge would have thrown the book at him. Since they're brown, it's OK.
This has nothing whatsoever about 'alienable rights.' It has everything to do with furthering a political agenda
We *may* be able to leverage this to do some good, but as it stands it's still one law for me and another law for thee
M
