Should illegal aliens, be allowed to own guns in the USA?

[Bassman007]

Note this is a trick question designed to scramble liberal brains, because now they have to say yes, illegal aliens should be able to own guns, just Americans have no right to own those same guns.

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Is it legal for a person residing illegally in a country to own a fire arm legally?

Is this what you mean?

But, according to the Dems, they aren't 'illegal', just 'undocumented'

A good portion of the Dems have clouded judgment because of a terminal illness called liberalism. They simply can't think beyond an emotional state. It really is a shame that scientists aren't working to find a cure for this debilitating condition.

This is clearly ridiculous and wrong given the ignorance and stupidity exhibited in this thread by conservatives – blinded by the emotion of hate, and their unwarranted hatred of undocumented immigrants.

I'm gonna move into your house next week while you're out. Just consider me an "undocumented" house guest.

Derp

Are you bringing your AK-47?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Illegals are illegal. They have no rights other than to a trial for their crime.

federal law says no

but the 7th circuit says yes they do

The 7th Circuit doesn't say yes they do, Chief Judge Wood says that if they can show a substantial attachment to this country, that they may have some rights.

we see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States
voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has ex-
tensive ties with this country, having resided here from the
time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five
until his removal.​

Wood then goes on to cite Plyler,

In
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202
(1982), which
Verdugo-Urquidez
left undisturbed, the Court
addressed the status of unauthorized aliens as “persons” for
constitutional purposes: ​

Which limits Constitutional Protections as she states. She argues that the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited, it is a permissible restriction of Congress to limit.

This being key, they haven't touched upon the actual right of an illegal to actually posses a firearm, Wood's simply states Congress can restrict whom they desire and the courts need not go any further.

Meza-Rodriguez’s ability to invoke the Second Amend-
ment does not resolve this case, however, because the right
to bear arms is not unlimited. See
Heller
, 554 U.S. at 595.
Congress may circumscribe this right in some instances
without running afoul of the Constitution, and so we must
now decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is such a permissi-
ble restriction. ​

So the 7th Circuit doesn't say he has a right to own or posses a firearm, they state that Congress can limit who can own and posses.

Congress’s interest in prohibiting persons who are diffi-
cult to track and who have an interest in eluding law en-
forcement is strong enough to support the conclusion that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) does not impermissibly restrict Meza-
No. 14-3271
17
Rodriguez’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. We thus
A
FFIRM
the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. ​

if they can show a substantial attachment to this country

 

[PredFan]

Illegals are illegal. They have no rights other than to a trial for their crime.

federal law says no

but the 7th circuit says yes they do

The 7th Circuit doesn't say yes they do, Chief Judge Wood says that if they can show a substantial attachment to this country, that they may have some rights.

we see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States
voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has ex-
tensive ties with this country, having resided here from the
time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five
until his removal.​

Wood then goes on to cite Plyler,

In
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202
(1982), which
Verdugo-Urquidez
left undisturbed, the Court
addressed the status of unauthorized aliens as “persons” for
constitutional purposes: ​

Which limits Constitutional Protections as she states. She argues that the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited, it is a permissible restriction of Congress to limit.

This being key, they haven't touched upon the actual right of an illegal to actually posses a firearm, Wood's simply states Congress can restrict whom they desire and the courts need not go any further.

Meza-Rodriguez’s ability to invoke the Second Amend-
ment does not resolve this case, however, because the right
to bear arms is not unlimited. See
Heller
, 554 U.S. at 595.
Congress may circumscribe this right in some instances
without running afoul of the Constitution, and so we must
now decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is such a permissi-
ble restriction. ​

So the 7th Circuit doesn't say he has a right to own or posses a firearm, they state that Congress can limit who can own and posses.

Congress’s interest in prohibiting persons who are diffi-
cult to track and who have an interest in eluding law en-
forcement is strong enough to support the conclusion that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) does not impermissibly restrict Meza-
No. 14-3271
17
Rodriguez’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. We thus
A
FFIRM
the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. ​

if they can show a substantial attachment to this country

They could, but they do not. What they do, is break the laws further, free load as much as possible, burn the US flag and wave the Mexican flag.

 

[Clementine]

Note this is a trick question designed to scramble liberal brains, because now they have to say yes, illegal aliens should be able to own guns, just Americans have no right to own those same guns.

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Illegal aliens have the right to be deported. Period.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Illegals are illegal. They have no rights other than to a trial for their crime.

federal law says no

but the 7th circuit says yes they do

The 7th Circuit doesn't say yes they do, Chief Judge Wood says that if they can show a substantial attachment to this country, that they may have some rights.

we see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States
voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has ex-
tensive ties with this country, having resided here from the
time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five
until his removal.​

Wood then goes on to cite Plyler,

In
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202
(1982), which
Verdugo-Urquidez
left undisturbed, the Court
addressed the status of unauthorized aliens as “persons” for
constitutional purposes: ​

Which limits Constitutional Protections as she states. She argues that the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited, it is a permissible restriction of Congress to limit.

This being key, they haven't touched upon the actual right of an illegal to actually posses a firearm, Wood's simply states Congress can restrict whom they desire and the courts need not go any further.

Meza-Rodriguez’s ability to invoke the Second Amend-
ment does not resolve this case, however, because the right
to bear arms is not unlimited. See
Heller
, 554 U.S. at 595.
Congress may circumscribe this right in some instances
without running afoul of the Constitution, and so we must
now decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is such a permissi-
ble restriction. ​

So the 7th Circuit doesn't say he has a right to own or posses a firearm, they state that Congress can limit who can own and posses.

Congress’s interest in prohibiting persons who are diffi-
cult to track and who have an interest in eluding law en-
forcement is strong enough to support the conclusion that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) does not impermissibly restrict Meza-
No. 14-3271
17
Rodriguez’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. We thus
A
FFIRM
the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. ​

if they can show a substantial attachment to this country

They could, but they do not. What they do, is break the laws further, free load as much as possible, burn the US flag and wave the Mexican flag.

yes i know that

but that isnt how the leftists view them

 

[PredFan]

Illegals are illegal. They have no rights other than to a trial for their crime.

federal law says no

but the 7th circuit says yes they do

The 7th Circuit doesn't say yes they do, Chief Judge Wood says that if they can show a substantial attachment to this country, that they may have some rights.

we see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States
voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has ex-
tensive ties with this country, having resided here from the
time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five
until his removal.​

Wood then goes on to cite Plyler,

In
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202
(1982), which
Verdugo-Urquidez
left undisturbed, the Court
addressed the status of unauthorized aliens as “persons” for
constitutional purposes: ​

Which limits Constitutional Protections as she states. She argues that the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited, it is a permissible restriction of Congress to limit.

This being key, they haven't touched upon the actual right of an illegal to actually posses a firearm, Wood's simply states Congress can restrict whom they desire and the courts need not go any further.

Meza-Rodriguez’s ability to invoke the Second Amend-
ment does not resolve this case, however, because the right
to bear arms is not unlimited. See
Heller
, 554 U.S. at 595.
Congress may circumscribe this right in some instances
without running afoul of the Constitution, and so we must
now decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is such a permissi-
ble restriction. ​

So the 7th Circuit doesn't say he has a right to own or posses a firearm, they state that Congress can limit who can own and posses.

Congress’s interest in prohibiting persons who are diffi-
cult to track and who have an interest in eluding law en-
forcement is strong enough to support the conclusion that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) does not impermissibly restrict Meza-
No. 14-3271
17
Rodriguez’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. We thus
A
FFIRM
the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. ​

if they can show a substantial attachment to this country

They could, but they do not. What they do, is break the laws further, free load as much as possible, burn the US flag and wave the Mexican flag.

yes i know that

but that isnt how the leftists view them

Yeah, I misread your post. Sorry. My response still has merit by itself though.

 

[jon_berzerk]

federal law says no

but the 7th circuit says yes they do

The 7th Circuit doesn't say yes they do, Chief Judge Wood says that if they can show a substantial attachment to this country, that they may have some rights.

we see first that Meza-Rodriguez was in the United States
voluntarily; there is no debate on this point. He still has ex-
tensive ties with this country, having resided here from the
time he arrived over 20 years ago at the age of four or five
until his removal.​

Wood then goes on to cite Plyler,

In
Plyler v. Doe,
457 U.S. 202
(1982), which
Verdugo-Urquidez
left undisturbed, the Court
addressed the status of unauthorized aliens as “persons” for
constitutional purposes: ​

Which limits Constitutional Protections as she states. She argues that the "right to bear arms" is not unlimited, it is a permissible restriction of Congress to limit.

This being key, they haven't touched upon the actual right of an illegal to actually posses a firearm, Wood's simply states Congress can restrict whom they desire and the courts need not go any further.

Meza-Rodriguez’s ability to invoke the Second Amend-
ment does not resolve this case, however, because the right
to bear arms is not unlimited. See
Heller
, 554 U.S. at 595.
Congress may circumscribe this right in some instances
without running afoul of the Constitution, and so we must
now decide whether 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) is such a permissi-
ble restriction. ​

So the 7th Circuit doesn't say he has a right to own or posses a firearm, they state that Congress can limit who can own and posses.

Congress’s interest in prohibiting persons who are diffi-
cult to track and who have an interest in eluding law en-
forcement is strong enough to support the conclusion that 18
U.S.C. § 922(g)(5) does not impermissibly restrict Meza-
No. 14-3271
17
Rodriguez’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. We thus
A
FFIRM
the district court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. ​

if they can show a substantial attachment to this country

They could, but they do not. What they do, is break the laws further, free load as much as possible, burn the US flag and wave the Mexican flag.

yes i know that

but that isnt how the leftists view them

Yeah, I misread your post. Sorry. My response still has merit by itself though.

yes of course

 

[jbrower157]

What's the purpose of this thread? Democrats don't like guns and to my knowledge don't support illegal immigration so where's the trick in this question? Does not agreeing that all illegal immigrants are murdering rapists mean that You support illegal immigration? Does supporting a plan to register and collect taxes from illegals when republicans have proposed no practical plan to handle the existing in this country mean that you support illegal immigration? What a dumb post

 

[The Rabbi]

Note this is a trick question designed to scramble liberal brains, because now they have to say yes, illegal aliens should be able to own guns, just Americans have no right to own those same guns.

Nyuk Nyuk Nyuk

Is the right of self defense a human right or not?

 

[there4eyeM]

'Rights', essentially, are those that can be exercised.

 

[The Rabbi]

'Rights', essentially, are those that can be exercised.

So there is no such thing as a human right?

 

[there4eyeM]

There is at least one.

 

[The Rabbi]

There is at least one.

Which is?

 

[there4eyeM]

"Je pense, donc, je suis."

 

[The Rabbi]

"Je pense, donc, je suis."

Cogito ergo sum is not a right, doofus.
You're dismissed.

 

[there4eyeM]

You trying to grant the right to remain silent? Big of you. That makes at least one 'right'.
Obviously, you have the right to write. So, we can assume there are at least two 'rights', or is that wrong?
Oh, you know, I thought you forgot a comma; "So there is no such thing as a human, right?"
There are all the rights a human can name. All are attributed by humans to whatever humans decide to attribute them to. Trees have rights as soon as a person decides so.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

if they can show a substantial attachment to this country

They may have some rights. They may also have some protections. A right by its very nature is limiting, and Congress can limit who owns a weapon.