If the 1st ammendment applies to non citizens, why doesn't the 2nd ammendment?

[Little-Acorn]

A naturalized US citizen who was born in Malaysia. This person's BROTHER applies for a VISA. The snowflake argument is that the brother gets the protection of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
Shouldn't that same person get the protection of the 2nd amendment....as well as every other protection provided to AMERICAN citizens by the US Constitution?

Maybe. As long as it remains well regulated.

Are the liberals STILL trying to use this long-debunked fib?

 

[sakinago]

A naturalized US citizen who was born in Malaysia. This person's BROTHER applies for a VISA. The snowflake argument is that the brother gets the protection of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

Shouldn't that same person get the protection of the 2nd amendment....as well as every other protection provided to AMERICAN citizens by the US Constitution?

And technically they are not protected under the constitution since the 14th amendment defines citizenship, and citizen is defined as a "right to rights" so they're no legal obligation to for the 2nd to non citizens. But it's up to the fed to decide since the fed is in charge of naturalization in the enumerated powers, and I'm honestly not sure what their take is on it.

Some amendments apply to citizens, others apply to persons

That's not really law, just something you stated. And no not all amendments apply to all citizens, since we practice free speech zones, fining expression of religion, gun regulations, NSA dragnet spying, DUI/seatbelt/or whatever name police checkpoints, asset forfeit seizure, no fly lists, fed govt violations all over the place concerning 9th and 10th amendments, federal reserve, IRS, and many others I did not list.

 

[rightwinger]

A naturalized US citizen who was born in Malaysia. This person's BROTHER applies for a VISA. The snowflake argument is that the brother gets the protection of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

Shouldn't that same person get the protection of the 2nd amendment....as well as every other protection provided to AMERICAN citizens by the US Constitution?

And technically they are not protected under the constitution since the 14th amendment defines citizenship, and citizen is defined as a "right to rights" so they're no legal obligation to for the 2nd to non citizens. But it's up to the fed to decide since the fed is in charge of naturalization in the enumerated powers, and I'm honestly not sure what their take is on it.

Some amendments apply to citizens, others apply to persons

That's not really law, just something you stated. And no not all amendments apply to all citizens, since we practice free speech zones, fining expression of religion, gun regulations, NSA dragnet spying, DUI/seatbelt/or whatever name police checkpoints, asset forfeit seizure, no fly lists, fed govt violations all over the place concerning 9th and 10th amendments, federal reserve, IRS, and many others I did not list.

All amendments apply to all citizens

 

[TheOldSchool]

A naturalized US citizen who was born in Malaysia. This person's BROTHER applies for a VISA. The snowflake argument is that the brother gets the protection of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.
Shouldn't that same person get the protection of the 2nd amendment....as well as every other protection provided to AMERICAN citizens by the US Constitution?

Maybe. As long as it remains well regulated.

Are the liberals STILL trying to use this long-debunked fib?

To great success, dummy

 

[sakinago]

A naturalized US citizen who was born in Malaysia. This person's BROTHER applies for a VISA. The snowflake argument is that the brother gets the protection of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution.

Shouldn't that same person get the protection of the 2nd amendment....as well as every other protection provided to AMERICAN citizens by the US Constitution?

And technically they are not protected under the constitution since the 14th amendment defines citizenship, and citizen is defined as a "right to rights" so they're no legal obligation to for the 2nd to non citizens. But it's up to the fed to decide since the fed is in charge of naturalization in the enumerated powers, and I'm honestly not sure what their take is on it.

The 2nd doesn't specify "citizens " . So a legal green card holder can get a gun . There are only certain parts of the con that use "citizens" in the wording .

I believe citizen was really only defined in the 14th amendment like I stated, and it's a right to rights e.g. The BOR. Powers of naturalization are given to the federal government, and if green card holders have an ability to bear arms I have zero problems with it, I was just stating the federal government has authority in that situation constitutionally.

In another thread I had a similar conversation where illegal immigrants do not fall under the protection of the 5th and 6th amendments, because they are not citizens, we offer court hearings as a form of shutting down human rights activists, but if they are caught within 14 days and 100 or so miles of the boarder we can deport them without any sort of trial.

 

[jknowgood]

Last I knew, undocumented can own guns.

The NRA made of that, as well as giving guns to the mentally ill and known/suspected terrorists.

If Obama didn't over reached on his attemp to gun grab. Trump wouldn't of gotten rid of the Bill. It stated if you couldn't balance your check book. You couldn't own a gun.

 

[ColonelAngus]

Roe V Wade applies to Syrian citizens!!!

Enjoy your abortions, SYRIAN WOMEN!!!!

 

[Little-Acorn]

And no not all amendments apply to all citizens, since we practice free speech zones, fining expression of religion, gun regulations, NSA dragnet spying, DUI/seatbelt/or whatever name police checkpoints, asset forfeit seizure, no fly lists, fed govt violations all over the place concerning 9th and 10th amendments, federal reserve, IRS, and many others I did not list.

Are you saying that, if the government makes laws that violate the Constitution (including its amendments), the Constitution no longer applies?

That's sort of like saying that if somebody robs a bank, the laws against bank robbery "no longer apply".

I do not agree.

 

[sakinago]

And no not all amendments apply to all citizens, since we practice free speech zones, fining expression of religion, gun regulations, NSA dragnet spying, DUI/seatbelt/or whatever name police checkpoints, asset forfeit seizure, no fly lists, fed govt violations all over the place concerning 9th and 10th amendments, federal reserve, IRS, and many others I did not list.

Are you saying that, if the government makes laws that violate the Constitution (including its amendments), the Constitution no longer applies?

That's sort of like saying that if somebody robs a bank, the laws against bank robbery "no longer apply".

I do not agree.

No not at all, my point was government has been violating the constitution. Constitution/BOR is the highest law of the land, that the government has been ignoring.

 

[ColonelAngus]

The 14th amendment applies to SAUDIS!!

Enjoy your due process and equal protection, Saudi women who chose to drive a car!

 

[Timmy]

The 14th amendment applies to SAUDIS!!

Enjoy your due process and equal protection, Saudi women who chose to drive a car!

It does if they are in America . You don't have to be a citizen .

But you must be talking about the travel ban. If you actually read what the decision says you would know it's not about the rights of some foreigner , it's about the limits on our government on establishing/targeting a religion .

 

[rightwinger]

The 14th amendment applies to SAUDIS!!

Enjoy your due process and equal protection, Saudi women who chose to drive a car!

The 14th Amendment applies to the United States

yes, Saudi women are allowed to drive in the U.S. And many do

 

[sakinago]

The 14th amendment applies to SAUDIS!!

Enjoy your due process and equal protection, Saudi women who chose to drive a car!

The 14th Amendment applies to the United States

yes, Saudi women are allowed to drive in the U.S. And many do

Judging by his last few post I think angus has reached his limits of productive conversation, we should stop responding.