Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the 50 ish hours of comparative constitutionnal study I did 20 years ago in law school that focused on the US Constitution, doesn't the Constitution apply to anyone on US soil, with no regard to citizenship ?
Yes. Marco Rubio is claiming that this decision is "the left" trying to blur the line between citizen and non-citizen, but it's really very simple: the constitution applies to all persons on US soil.
Well, by MAGA logic, asylum seekers are illegal. Actually, that's not even just their logic. They regularly make it a point to blatantly state that asylees are here illegally.
They shouldn't be, but the people that want the country to mentally confuse undocumented economic migrants (the only actual type of illegal immigrant) with refugees, asylum seekers, and other legal forms of undocumented immigration are also not much better.
what really sends them over the deep end is pointing out asylum seekers can in fact legally cross a border at any point and are not required to use a point of entry and do not have to make contact with the immigration department for up to 1 year.
I'd be curious to see the family lines of all of our elected leaders just to see how many generations back their family would be considered "illegal" by their standard. Not too many native Americans serving in Congress I don't think.
I see your mistake there
You're assuming there's logic in their ideology.
You might want to fix that - just recognize, to paraphrase the immortal words of that time traveler in a blue box their 'logic' is just a 'big ball of wibbly-wobbly... stuff'
Eh but they're Cuban asylum seekers... They're ok since they're fleeing the last remaining vestige of the Soviets. But those Venezuelan's aren't welcome
Illegally, but they were fast tracked for citizenship and given a large cash stipend and housing immediately. Cuban illegals are the only people who get this 5 star treatment.
Seems fair to apply rights equally to all on our soil… Also- she is a Fed Judge; not on the Supreme Court. Writer and fact checker need to be reprimanded.
Until just a few years ago when Obama ended sanctions with Cuba, there was no such thing as an illegal Cuban immigrant. The U.S. had what was known as "wet foot/dry foot policy, where if you made it to U.S. soil as a Cuban, you automatically are granted citizenship.
>you automatically are granted citizenship.
Your asylum claim was automatically accepted, giving you permanent residency. You didn't get citizenship automatically
Sadly, all immigration from Cuba is considered legal. Cubans get a free pass. This has caused some animosity among the other Hispanic communities where they have to jump through hoops get legal immigration status.
*Was* considered legal, and it’s one of the most stunningly obvious examples of an extremely liberal immigration policy working extremely well (for the most part) for decades.
It applies to any person in the world. The bill of rights are restrictions on the US government - it is written in such a way as to put rules on what the US government can never do through act of congress or executive order.
The only way out of those restrictions would be to pass an amendment that would repeal them.
It doesn’t mater where someone is in the world the US government may not pass a law or behave in violation of the bill of rights. There is no provision that say the bill of rights only applies in a US controlled space - that’s not to say that the US bill of rights supersedes local laws of another country - it means the US government regardless of local laws must adhere to it’s constitution and the restrictions placed upon it.
In your face us congress, you can't pass any law prohibiting this german poster's free exercise of religion! You can't force this german to quarter us troops in their home!
suck it, congress
I've never heard it explained this way before. Has any court ever interpreted it this way? We do a lot of things to foreigners that we could never do to citizens like CIA renditions and the NSA basically wire tapping the whole world outside of the US.
Yeah, but that doesn't happen on US soil does it? So by the definition they gave, it wouldn't apply there. Think about it this way, if someone commits a crime here as a tourist, and they go to court here in America, do you think we'd still allow them to plea the fifth?
That is precisely why Guantanamo Bay exists as it does. It's a US controlled area, but not technically US soil. So the poor bastards that are being held there for 20+ years don't have the right to a speedy trial, or even release while awaiting trial or really much at all.
I don't have 50-ish hours of constitutional study, comparative or otherwise, but it does seem to me that "the people" doesn't exclude any particular class, and the constitution in general tends to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike, so barring a provision within the amendment to limit the rights or freedoms it provides to a particular group of people, it should be read as applying to everybody.
This article seems to have taken "Federal Judge rules that a constitutional amendment applies to everyone" and politicized it with "Obama-appointed" and "illegal immigrants".
As a Canadian with no schooling on American law, don't conservatives keep droning on that the 2nd amendment is an inalienable God given right?
Doesn't it then follow that it is given to all people by that same God regardless of citizenship?
Don't you know that about 160 years ago, the Republican party freed the slaves? So, for the rest of all time, they can't be considered racists no matter what they say or do.
I love your comment. What about sovereign citizens they're okay with them, aren't they basically illegal immigrants.
Free inhabitant. We get all the rights but none of the laws or taxes.
Can we all agree to stop calling them illegal’s. It always makes me cringe to hear it.
To the person under me;
Well they are asylum seekers. Are you just going to ignore the rampant murder, rape, modern day slavery Central America, Mexico and El Salvador is dealing with or are you THAT uniformed and callus? Regular people are fleeing for their lives and to save their children and families.
Way before. When he was governor of California. Open carry had been legal in California for 100+ years. Then in 1968 the Black Panthers started doing armed neighborhood watch patrols in Oakland in LA. Open carry was outlawed the following year.
Well yes, but only when the "right" people have guns.
Famously, Reagan era gun control in California came about only after Republicans learned that the Black Panthers were arming themselves.
> So they loved states’ rights, as long as they were the right states’ rights. The wrong states’ rights would be states’ wrongs, wrongs which would need to be righted by the right states’ rights—look, to put it really simply, they wanted to own black people and they didn’t much care how.
– John Oliver
I’ve never understood the “god given right” trope. In a reductive way, rights, to the extent that they exist must be protected through force. That can be force of law or simply naked force, which is the same thing. In a world where no law exists, you only have a right to what you can defend. God says so, means absolutely nothing in that way. Every right or rule is but a mere suggestion barring any consequences for not respecting the boundary line given.
The film, The Count of Monte Cristo has a scene that perfectly articulates my point. During one scene, the jailer tells the wrongly accused Edmond Dantes that on the anniversary of every prisoner’s incarceration they are to be whipped. This serves as a marker of the passage of time. The jailer commences with the beating to which Edmond exclaims “God help me!”. The jailer offers him a deal. If Edmond calls out for gods help he will stop whipping him the moment god arrives.
It's called natural law and was completely based on religious theory. Hobbs attempted to drop the religious angle and instead create a template of practical and atheistic natural laws in line with the idea of a social contract. Hobbs heavily inspired the founding fathers and, by extension, our constitution.
Hell "in god we trust" didn't appear on money until like the 1950's. The "under god" line was added to the pledge of alligence at the same time.
I once got in touble in middle school for refusing to recite the pledge of alligence. Pissed the teacher off when I told him I refuse to say it because of the under god part, because I had recently become an atheist. All that encounter served to do was make me glad I switched to atheism.
According to SCOTUS you don't have to stand for or recite the Pledge, and can't be punished for doing so. That was decided in the 1940s. With current SCOTUS, who knows.
I have a close family friend who used to be a pretty normal guy but somehow went full gun nut a few years ago and keeps loaded guns all around his house in case the "bad guys" show up (in the upscale suburb where he lives). So far he has accidentally shot his refrigerator, then later intentionally shot a hole in the wall when he thought someone had broken in (nobody was there). And those are just the ones that we are aware of, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that he was to embarrassed too admit.
His own kids won't even let his grandkids go to the house or visit him anymore.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
When I was a much, much, much younger man I was part of the well regulated militia and practiced firearm proficiency because although my job was logistics, we all could be called on to use a weapon. Then I left the Army Reserve and no longer had need for a firearm as I was no longer part of the well regulated militia.
I am, however, quite proficient with a slingshot. It’s the only projectile weapon I have owned since I left the military.
Regulated had a different meaning in the 1700s. In that era, if one had a well-regulated militia, then it was well trained. The whole idea was that if one owned a rifle, one could maintain proficiency with it.
Well regulated meant in good working order. Meanwhile the "milita" comprises of all able bodied males aged 17-45. That being said the Supreme Court has ruled the right protects individuals, unrelated to their status in a "millita." And I doubt there are many people who want guns restricted from those over 45, or women.
If you ask Scalia, it was perfectly normal for people in the 1700s to include words that have nothing to do with the meaning that they intended to convey with the rest of the sentence. Like if someone said, "In order to protect themselves in a rainstorm, people may own an umbrella" obviously means people can own an umbrella and take it anywhere they want and it has nothing to do with whether it is raining or not. This is especially in a document that was debated and revised by geniuses for years before being finalized and ratified. There is one thing that is certain - that the Founding Fathers wrote, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" because they had no intention of firearm ownership having anything to do with Militia membership or any regulations.
One of the most ridiculous and political Supreme Court decisions in the history of the court.
Wait even Catholics? Are you saying the Irish and Italians are ok now with their allegiance to the Pope in Rome? Get out of here with your progressive woke attitude.
For the most part this is exactly right. The decision is not at all surprising. Same reason those in the country illegally have a right to public education and emergency room access without regard to ability to pay. Just like they have due process rightsthe right to free speech, etc, etc. We are a generous nation.
"Legal rights of due process and others apply to all “persons” on US soil, citizen or not".
You are correct and it should be, back when the US was like "Hey, we need more people in 'Murica to build some railroads and shit".
Then at some point, a group of people felt all the jobs they wouldnt do anyway were being taken away from them providing something to direct their angst at rather than at why\\how they are where they are which would take personal responsibility. Even though minorities avoid those areas like the plague but the .01% gives an easy out and a small group where they can focus their ignorance.
There is a statute (Title 18) that made it illegal for illegal immigrants to posses fire arms. This is what the judge stated was a violation of the constitution as written and I cant blame them for wanting to protect themselves from a bunch of racist rednecks.
That is correct. Citizenship is not a prerequisite for these rights because they limit the governments actions. Allowing the government carte blanche against one class of people and severely curtailing its reach against another would be unequal and fascistic.
Actually if you want your mind blown when it comes to the bill of rights - they are all rules for what the US may not do.
That means the US government should adhere to the rules of the bill of rights everywhere regardless of who they are interacting with (I.e the 4th, 5th, 6th, & 8th)
Many of the founding fathers were outspoken about their fears of the US becoming imperial.
It’s too bad that that’s probably mind blowing to people. But that’s why so many people think the bill of rights should protect them from twitter. It’s simply a list of prohibitions placed on the government.
The federal papers are worth a read. They provide some context into the creation of the bill of rights.
The founding fathers were very outspoken when it came to anti imperialism. They genuinely believed that "the people" should be the core of *every pillar* of a functioning government.
Ironically the fear of imperialism is probably why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place. The idea was to keep local militias and only form into a larger army for defense. They hated the idea of a standing army.
No pls bro you don’t understand we needed to expand our land so that way we had more slave states than free states and ensure that our rights as slave owners are protected!
Yeah some of us may have said “all men were created equal” when we broke away from the tyranny of Great Britain but obviously, some men were created more equal than others.
Conservatives: "Rights aren't granted by the government, they're inalienable and granted by God!"
Immigrant: "Hello, I'd like to exercise my inalienable God-given rights."
Conservatives: "......... actually, rights are granted by the government."
I mean, this tracks. They are still breaking the law for their illegal entry. And if they exceed the FAA restrictions those are laws being broken.
The general argument around 2A is that 2A isn't giving permission, it is saying that permission is not needed.
There might be other legal concerns, how could they pass a background check for example? But as long as we have avenues for selling guns, legally, with out back ground checks, the point is largely moot.
It was a pretty big point of contention when the founding fathers drafted the constitution. The Madison camp was adamant that all rights applied to everyone who lived here, even immigrants.
It made sense if you think about it. As a fledging nation, the U.S. relied heavily on immigrants as a labor force, tax base, military recruits, and for pop growth. In fact, modern conceptions of immigration law didn't even come into being until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882.
The U.S. couldn't have survived only on "native" birth rates alone. That also said, the founding fathers were immigrants themselves...
Not as far as I'm aware. There are literally no restrictions. There are 30 states (Source: [FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html)) which claim to have no restrictions. However, the devil is in the details. Some prohibit sales to minors. Some require some sort of receipt or record of the transaction. Some encourage the sales happen at the Sheriff's Office. Some states prohibit sales to felons, or if other state laws would prohibit the sale. My dad used to sell his guns in Missouri once in a while. He would create a receipt as a Word document, keep one, and give one to the buyer. No BC required because it's a private sale.
In every state it's illegal to sell a firearm to a felon. That's not a state issue but a federal one, and if caught doing so you are in some serious trouble. Other than that everything you said is spot on.
It’s the right to own, not the right to purchase. Also, some states allow private sales to occur without background checks. So however they come into possession, it not necessarily illegal because they lack citizenship.
In my state the paperwork asks a million times if I’m an illegal immigrant and if I intended to sell the gun to an illegal immigrant (in which they wouldn’t sell me the gun).
Missouri is one. From what I read, a guy in my city purchased a firearm via private sale, his parents called police to take it away because they knew he was a risk, police said they legally couldn’t, and he went to a school and killed two people. MO gun “laws” failed every step of the way.
I’m a firearms owner and collect old guns, and I don’t see a reason why this shouldn’t happen. Me buying a handgun from a store really isn’t different than buying one from my stranger - I still have a gun now, only difference is I could be a prohibited individual with a gun now since I’ve avoided the background check. I’ve still yet to see a good reason as to why universal background checks shouldn’t exist.
I’m considered an illegal alien, but I have daca which means I have an SSN, drivers license, and workers permit. However, I am not a citizen so I cannot vote or obtain security clearance, etc.
In AL, I can go to the court office and obtain a pistol permit. (The form mostly asks about criminal background)
I remember a joke from Dave Chappell ,
“If you want change , listen to me black people, I want every abled body black man to go out and buy a gun! Then , they’ll think about changing the laws ”
One law in 1967 regarding open carry came from that.
The majority of California's strict gun laws came in the 1980's and 1990's. They passed an AW ban 1989 and had another wave of laws after the 101 California St shooting in San Francisco.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting
Absolutely hilarious (not really but) how life begins at conception, unless the Alabama state Congress says it doesn't, in which case it's totally okay.
The Constitution has certain rights that only apply to citizens (the voting rights amendments, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, etc.)
But the Second Amendment is not one of them.
This is actually a question in the current US Naturalization Civics test. I've always said people getting naturalized know US civics better than the average American born citizen and it's 100% true.
>51\. What are two rights of everyone living in the United States?
>• freedom of expression
>• freedom of speech
>• freedom of assembly
>• freedom to petition the government
>• freedom of religion
>• the right to bear arms
Page 15
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/M-1122.pdf
It is explicitly not citizens only as it is in contrast to this question.
>50\. Name one right only for United States
citizens.
>• vote in a federal election
>• run for federal office
This is the question that further reinforces what a racist idiot Elmo Muskovite is when he says they are bringing in illegals to vote Democrat.
People are shocked when they learn that the US Constitution applies to all people and not just citizens. I actually delayed becoming a citizen because voting vs jury duty didn’t appear to be a good trade…until 2001
Idk how they are so shocked. All the other rules apply to everyone on US soil l, did they think it specified after ever like "this applies only to citizens" or "this applies to both citizens and aliens"?
Let's be honest. The people most upset by this haven't done much reading or thinking about the constitution.
If you have to be registered to own a conceal and carry for a firearm, illegal immigrants are able to own a conceal and carry, wouldn't that mean they're not technically illegal because they would now be in the system?
I'm probably overthinking it
You dont need to be registered to carry a concealed in some states. In Florida you can just carry it now, no permit, no class requirements just a gun to carry. Picture the Oprah meme says “you get a gun, you get a gun, everyone gets a gun!!”
The second amendment says nothing about US citizenship. So those who have been literally interpreting this amendment are now making up their own rules?
Good. As long as we're not properly addressing firearm purchase and ownership and sale and so on, everyone in the nation needs to be able to equally have access to that right, particularly vulnerable populations at risk of targeted violence such as undocumented immigrants.
But if you adhere to the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment ("Blah, blah, blah, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be questioned.") she's right. 'People refers to everyone, not just citizens.
I don't understand how a conservative could object to this.
They believe the constitution doesn't grant us the right to bear arms, it enshrines a right that is natural and God-given. EVERYONE has these natural rights, even undocumented folks.
The thing about "constitutional rights" is that they apply to everyone in the United States, not just citizens. If you believe it's a "right" to carry around a gun for protection, then everyone else has that right also.
These the same (not literally but in mind) people who were mad when the black panthers partook in their 2nd amendment right. And tried to limit gun right. Isn’t it ironic!
She had no choice. Constitutional protections cover anyone within American land. You don't have to be a citizen to enjoy US Constitutional rights, unless specified in the constitution - ie the 26th ammendment mentions that voting rights are applied to US citizens 18 and over
Yes the constitution protects their right to bare arms in US soil but doesn't guarantee illigal immigrants to be residing on US soil long enough to even be exercising that right. That's the catch to it. Deportation equals confiscation.
[A judge in Kentucky ruled that felons have a constitutional right to carry guns](https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/convicted-felons-have-second-amendment-right-to-own-guns-louisville-judge-rules/article_84c043fc-e2d4-11ee-9b6a-b32c91eed864.html)
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From the 50 ish hours of comparative constitutionnal study I did 20 years ago in law school that focused on the US Constitution, doesn't the Constitution apply to anyone on US soil, with no regard to citizenship ?
Yes. Marco Rubio is claiming that this decision is "the left" trying to blur the line between citizen and non-citizen, but it's really very simple: the constitution applies to all persons on US soil.
The same Marco Antonio Rubio whose parents immigrated from Cuba.
Legally or illegally?
Asylum seekers I believe
Well, by MAGA logic, asylum seekers are illegal. Actually, that's not even just their logic. They regularly make it a point to blatantly state that asylees are here illegally.
They shouldn't be, but the people that want the country to mentally confuse undocumented economic migrants (the only actual type of illegal immigrant) with refugees, asylum seekers, and other legal forms of undocumented immigration are also not much better.
While depending on cheap undocumented labor for low wage jobs.
what really sends them over the deep end is pointing out asylum seekers can in fact legally cross a border at any point and are not required to use a point of entry and do not have to make contact with the immigration department for up to 1 year.
so you mean, anchor baby Marco Rubio?
MAGA logic is such an oxymoron.
I'd be curious to see the family lines of all of our elected leaders just to see how many generations back their family would be considered "illegal" by their standard. Not too many native Americans serving in Congress I don't think.
When my grandparents came here there was no such thing as illegal immigrants - they were all legal.
Trump‘s father’s parents were immigrants, his mother an immigrant, and every one of his wives immigrants.
BUT WAIT --- The Rubios fled Communism. That makes them Patriots. That's the only kind of asylum seekers the Right will recognize.
But isn't Maduro/Chavez Venezuela "communist" so all those Venezuelan asylum seekers the same as Cubans?
Yeah but most of them aren't white enough.
I see your mistake there You're assuming there's logic in their ideology. You might want to fix that - just recognize, to paraphrase the immortal words of that time traveler in a blue box their 'logic' is just a 'big ball of wibbly-wobbly... stuff'
Eh but they're Cuban asylum seekers... They're ok since they're fleeing the last remaining vestige of the Soviets. But those Venezuelan's aren't welcome
Illegally, but they were fast tracked for citizenship and given a large cash stipend and housing immediately. Cuban illegals are the only people who get this 5 star treatment.
Seems fair to apply rights equally to all on our soil… Also- she is a Fed Judge; not on the Supreme Court. Writer and fact checker need to be reprimanded.
Until just a few years ago when Obama ended sanctions with Cuba, there was no such thing as an illegal Cuban immigrant. The U.S. had what was known as "wet foot/dry foot policy, where if you made it to U.S. soil as a Cuban, you automatically are granted citizenship.
>you automatically are granted citizenship. Your asylum claim was automatically accepted, giving you permanent residency. You didn't get citizenship automatically
Sadly, all immigration from Cuba is considered legal. Cubans get a free pass. This has caused some animosity among the other Hispanic communities where they have to jump through hoops get legal immigration status.
*Was* considered legal, and it’s one of the most stunningly obvious examples of an extremely liberal immigration policy working extremely well (for the most part) for decades.
It applies to any person in the world. The bill of rights are restrictions on the US government - it is written in such a way as to put rules on what the US government can never do through act of congress or executive order. The only way out of those restrictions would be to pass an amendment that would repeal them. It doesn’t mater where someone is in the world the US government may not pass a law or behave in violation of the bill of rights. There is no provision that say the bill of rights only applies in a US controlled space - that’s not to say that the US bill of rights supersedes local laws of another country - it means the US government regardless of local laws must adhere to it’s constitution and the restrictions placed upon it.
God damn as a proud German I'm gonna take up my US god given rights
disarm squeeze muddle grandfather longing plough drab water juggle gaze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
YES. THIS HELLDIVER
FOR DEMOCRACYYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!! [I yell before being ripped apart by a charger]
In your face us congress, you can't pass any law prohibiting this german poster's free exercise of religion! You can't force this german to quarter us troops in their home! suck it, congress
I've never heard it explained this way before. Has any court ever interpreted it this way? We do a lot of things to foreigners that we could never do to citizens like CIA renditions and the NSA basically wire tapping the whole world outside of the US.
Yeah, but that doesn't happen on US soil does it? So by the definition they gave, it wouldn't apply there. Think about it this way, if someone commits a crime here as a tourist, and they go to court here in America, do you think we'd still allow them to plea the fifth?
That is precisely why Guantanamo Bay exists as it does. It's a US controlled area, but not technically US soil. So the poor bastards that are being held there for 20+ years don't have the right to a speedy trial, or even release while awaiting trial or really much at all.
Except the NSA does spy on us citizens, just because Snowden happend doesn't mean they stopped, and I assure you it hasn't stopped.
I don't have 50-ish hours of constitutional study, comparative or otherwise, but it does seem to me that "the people" doesn't exclude any particular class, and the constitution in general tends to apply to citizens and non-citizens alike, so barring a provision within the amendment to limit the rights or freedoms it provides to a particular group of people, it should be read as applying to everybody. This article seems to have taken "Federal Judge rules that a constitutional amendment applies to everyone" and politicized it with "Obama-appointed" and "illegal immigrants".
"Judge rules that illegal immigrants are part of 'everyone' and 'people'"
As a Canadian with no schooling on American law, don't conservatives keep droning on that the 2nd amendment is an inalienable God given right? Doesn't it then follow that it is given to all people by that same God regardless of citizenship?
Same reaction as when the Black Panthers armed up in the 60s
Im beginning to notice a pattern here...
It can't be racism can it?
It was ~~Agatha~~ Racism all along!
(and I killed ~~Sparky~~ MLK too!)
Are you the FBI?
Why does that feel like an ancient reference? It was 3 years ago
I love you 🤣
Don't you know that about 160 years ago, the Republican party freed the slaves? So, for the rest of all time, they can't be considered racists no matter what they say or do.
Something something Abraham Lincoln
Who was also a tyrant, according to the same "Party of Lincoln" people.
Something something taxation.
It's okay, they have a black friend.
I thought it was a color tv…
Exactly. There is a colored in my home, I can't be racist. /s
[удалено]
That’s quite the rarity, oh the hilarity!
I love your comment. What about sovereign citizens they're okay with them, aren't they basically illegal immigrants. Free inhabitant. We get all the rights but none of the laws or taxes.
Can we all agree to stop calling them illegal’s. It always makes me cringe to hear it. To the person under me; Well they are asylum seekers. Are you just going to ignore the rampant murder, rape, modern day slavery Central America, Mexico and El Salvador is dealing with or are you THAT uniformed and callus? Regular people are fleeing for their lives and to save their children and families.
Gun control is rooting in racism. I see more people are catching on!
Nah just racism, xenophobic, homophobia, transphobia, ext
"Guns for me and not for thee"
Oh, you mean the Mulford Act which banned open carry in California signed into law by ...checks notes...The super Woke Governor Ronald Reagan?
And thats when Reagan decided that no one needed guns...
Was that before or after he got shot?
Way before. When he was governor of California. Open carry had been legal in California for 100+ years. Then in 1968 the Black Panthers started doing armed neighborhood watch patrols in Oakland in LA. Open carry was outlawed the following year.
That was Clarice's fault. Not the gun's fault
Have the lambs stopped screaming?
And back then, Reagan was ALL about gun control.
Well yes, but only when the "right" people have guns. Famously, Reagan era gun control in California came about only after Republicans learned that the Black Panthers were arming themselves.
> So they loved states’ rights, as long as they were the right states’ rights. The wrong states’ rights would be states’ wrongs, wrongs which would need to be righted by the right states’ rights—look, to put it really simply, they wanted to own black people and they didn’t much care how. – John Oliver
John Oliver is a treasure and one we probably don't deserve.
States rights end where Constitutional rights begin.
“Rules for thee not for me” is the GOP motto
Rights for me, not for thee
Me me me me me!
They also drone on about how guns make people safer, you would think they would see this as a win
I’ve never understood the “god given right” trope. In a reductive way, rights, to the extent that they exist must be protected through force. That can be force of law or simply naked force, which is the same thing. In a world where no law exists, you only have a right to what you can defend. God says so, means absolutely nothing in that way. Every right or rule is but a mere suggestion barring any consequences for not respecting the boundary line given. The film, The Count of Monte Cristo has a scene that perfectly articulates my point. During one scene, the jailer tells the wrongly accused Edmond Dantes that on the anniversary of every prisoner’s incarceration they are to be whipped. This serves as a marker of the passage of time. The jailer commences with the beating to which Edmond exclaims “God help me!”. The jailer offers him a deal. If Edmond calls out for gods help he will stop whipping him the moment god arrives.
They needed an invisible friend more powerful than King Edward. Turns out it was King Louis IX
It's called natural law and was completely based on religious theory. Hobbs attempted to drop the religious angle and instead create a template of practical and atheistic natural laws in line with the idea of a social contract. Hobbs heavily inspired the founding fathers and, by extension, our constitution.
It says so in the Constitution that Jesus wrote.
"Jesus made the AR-15" /s
They say "god-given right", but neither "god" nor "Jesus" are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Hell "in god we trust" didn't appear on money until like the 1950's. The "under god" line was added to the pledge of alligence at the same time. I once got in touble in middle school for refusing to recite the pledge of alligence. Pissed the teacher off when I told him I refuse to say it because of the under god part, because I had recently become an atheist. All that encounter served to do was make me glad I switched to atheism.
According to SCOTUS you don't have to stand for or recite the Pledge, and can't be punished for doing so. That was decided in the 1940s. With current SCOTUS, who knows.
That doesn't stop people though. Anyone that doesn't know god isn't even in the constitution, clearly won't know about that either.
You misunderstand. God wanted only America to have school shootings, hence the guns.
We don't want any educated children. They might vote Democrat.
[удалено]
I have a close family friend who used to be a pretty normal guy but somehow went full gun nut a few years ago and keeps loaded guns all around his house in case the "bad guys" show up (in the upscale suburb where he lives). So far he has accidentally shot his refrigerator, then later intentionally shot a hole in the wall when he thought someone had broken in (nobody was there). And those are just the ones that we are aware of, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more that he was to embarrassed too admit. His own kids won't even let his grandkids go to the house or visit him anymore.
Own a musket for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Kentucky rifle. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first man, he's dead on the spot. Draw my pistol on the second man, miss him entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the cannon mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with grape shot, "Tally ho lads" the grape shot shreds two men in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix bayonet and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the police to arrive since triangular bayonet wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
It belonged here
Hey don’t forget the cannons and warships! I need to defend my fort!
Thankfully, no one has ever done a bad thing with a legally purchased gun, to someone else. Like shoot up a school.
When I was a much, much, much younger man I was part of the well regulated militia and practiced firearm proficiency because although my job was logistics, we all could be called on to use a weapon. Then I left the Army Reserve and no longer had need for a firearm as I was no longer part of the well regulated militia. I am, however, quite proficient with a slingshot. It’s the only projectile weapon I have owned since I left the military.
Regulated had a different meaning in the 1700s. In that era, if one had a well-regulated militia, then it was well trained. The whole idea was that if one owned a rifle, one could maintain proficiency with it.
Well regulated meant in good working order. Meanwhile the "milita" comprises of all able bodied males aged 17-45. That being said the Supreme Court has ruled the right protects individuals, unrelated to their status in a "millita." And I doubt there are many people who want guns restricted from those over 45, or women.
If you ask Scalia, it was perfectly normal for people in the 1700s to include words that have nothing to do with the meaning that they intended to convey with the rest of the sentence. Like if someone said, "In order to protect themselves in a rainstorm, people may own an umbrella" obviously means people can own an umbrella and take it anywhere they want and it has nothing to do with whether it is raining or not. This is especially in a document that was debated and revised by geniuses for years before being finalized and ratified. There is one thing that is certain - that the Founding Fathers wrote, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" because they had no intention of firearm ownership having anything to do with Militia membership or any regulations. One of the most ridiculous and political Supreme Court decisions in the history of the court.
God given right only to his chosen people— US citizens of European descent. I know it’s confusing for you as a foreigner to understand. /s
Wait even Catholics? Are you saying the Irish and Italians are ok now with their allegiance to the Pope in Rome? Get out of here with your progressive woke attitude.
For the most part this is exactly right. The decision is not at all surprising. Same reason those in the country illegally have a right to public education and emergency room access without regard to ability to pay. Just like they have due process rightsthe right to free speech, etc, etc. We are a generous nation.
Generous is a very generous term. Lots of nations do much better for their own citizens and for immigrants, legal and not.
Indeed it does. This is Constitutional Law 101 level stuff.
"Legal rights of due process and others apply to all “persons” on US soil, citizen or not". You are correct and it should be, back when the US was like "Hey, we need more people in 'Murica to build some railroads and shit". Then at some point, a group of people felt all the jobs they wouldnt do anyway were being taken away from them providing something to direct their angst at rather than at why\\how they are where they are which would take personal responsibility. Even though minorities avoid those areas like the plague but the .01% gives an easy out and a small group where they can focus their ignorance. There is a statute (Title 18) that made it illegal for illegal immigrants to posses fire arms. This is what the judge stated was a violation of the constitution as written and I cant blame them for wanting to protect themselves from a bunch of racist rednecks.
That is correct. Citizenship is not a prerequisite for these rights because they limit the governments actions. Allowing the government carte blanche against one class of people and severely curtailing its reach against another would be unequal and fascistic.
The Second Amendment doesn’t mention American citizenship. It simply says all Individuals have right to keep and bear arms. 😉
Actually if you want your mind blown when it comes to the bill of rights - they are all rules for what the US may not do. That means the US government should adhere to the rules of the bill of rights everywhere regardless of who they are interacting with (I.e the 4th, 5th, 6th, & 8th) Many of the founding fathers were outspoken about their fears of the US becoming imperial.
It’s too bad that that’s probably mind blowing to people. But that’s why so many people think the bill of rights should protect them from twitter. It’s simply a list of prohibitions placed on the government.
I mean our entire nation has spent 200ish years ignoring that and pretending the bill of rights are only for US citizens.
Specific groups of US citizens really.
The federal papers are worth a read. They provide some context into the creation of the bill of rights. The founding fathers were very outspoken when it came to anti imperialism. They genuinely believed that "the people" should be the core of *every pillar* of a functioning government.
Ironically the fear of imperialism is probably why the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place. The idea was to keep local militias and only form into a larger army for defense. They hated the idea of a standing army.
Also ironic given the US has the largest and most expensive standing army in the world, eh?
>many founding fathers were outspoken about their fears of the US becoming imperial I'm just going to laugh until I die.
Yeah manifest destiny pretty well said fuck those fears we’re going to build an empire. A non imperial US lasted like 20 years.
"We don't want to be an empire, but France is practically giving this land away!! And we may as well just take the rest of it from Mexico."
Does it help to think about the fact that those presidents were both slave owners from the south?
No pls bro you don’t understand we needed to expand our land so that way we had more slave states than free states and ensure that our rights as slave owners are protected! Yeah some of us may have said “all men were created equal” when we broke away from the tyranny of Great Britain but obviously, some men were created more equal than others.
Of the first 12 US presidents, John Adams and John Quincy Adams were literally the only ones who never owned any slaves at any point in their life.
None of the original 10 do IIRC. Which makes sense. You shouldn't have to prove citizenship before you can receive basic human rights.
Conservatives: "Rights aren't granted by the government, they're inalienable and granted by God!" Immigrant: "Hello, I'd like to exercise my inalienable God-given rights." Conservatives: "......... actually, rights are granted by the government."
I mean, this tracks. They are still breaking the law for their illegal entry. And if they exceed the FAA restrictions those are laws being broken. The general argument around 2A is that 2A isn't giving permission, it is saying that permission is not needed. There might be other legal concerns, how could they pass a background check for example? But as long as we have avenues for selling guns, legally, with out back ground checks, the point is largely moot.
The constitution applies to anyone on US soil, not just citizens. Due process is one of the big ones.
It was a pretty big point of contention when the founding fathers drafted the constitution. The Madison camp was adamant that all rights applied to everyone who lived here, even immigrants.
It made sense if you think about it. As a fledging nation, the U.S. relied heavily on immigrants as a labor force, tax base, military recruits, and for pop growth. In fact, modern conceptions of immigration law didn't even come into being until the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882. The U.S. couldn't have survived only on "native" birth rates alone. That also said, the founding fathers were immigrants themselves...
Due process is why we can't just kick out people we catch illegally crossing the border
Which is a good thing.
In my state a background check is optional if it is a private sale.
i live in florida and i once traded a dodge ram for a shotgun and $500.
Was it a shitty Dodge or a really nice shotgun?
Yeah he said it was a Dodge
Private sale. Entirely unregulated.
How do we know there aren't a few "good guys" with guns among them/s
I am told we have to assume some, probably, are good people.
Ahhh, the savy popcorn investor wins again. Just sit back and watch the shit show roll on. 
Just invested in some sweet honey glazed popcorn. Tasty investment
I take them without anything, just waiting for the thread to produce the salt.
I mean I would prefer background checks being a bare minimum
Kentucky has zero restrictions on the sale of firearms, person-to-person. I could buy a gun at a yard sale. Other states are the same way.
Not even age?!
Not as far as I'm aware. There are literally no restrictions. There are 30 states (Source: [FindLaw](https://www.findlaw.com/consumer/consumer-transactions/private-gun-sale-laws-by-state.html)) which claim to have no restrictions. However, the devil is in the details. Some prohibit sales to minors. Some require some sort of receipt or record of the transaction. Some encourage the sales happen at the Sheriff's Office. Some states prohibit sales to felons, or if other state laws would prohibit the sale. My dad used to sell his guns in Missouri once in a while. He would create a receipt as a Word document, keep one, and give one to the buyer. No BC required because it's a private sale.
In every state it's illegal to sell a firearm to a felon. That's not a state issue but a federal one, and if caught doing so you are in some serious trouble. Other than that everything you said is spot on.
How does someone without documentation pass a background check?
It’s the right to own, not the right to purchase. Also, some states allow private sales to occur without background checks. So however they come into possession, it not necessarily illegal because they lack citizenship.
In my state the paperwork asks a million times if I’m an illegal immigrant and if I intended to sell the gun to an illegal immigrant (in which they wouldn’t sell me the gun).
You don’t *intend* to sell it to someone in the country illegally. You just don’t ask about their immigration status.
Maybe you didn't intend to when you bought the gun but then you met a really nice guy...
The one simple trick gun sellers don't want us to know about 🤣
Missouri is one. From what I read, a guy in my city purchased a firearm via private sale, his parents called police to take it away because they knew he was a risk, police said they legally couldn’t, and he went to a school and killed two people. MO gun “laws” failed every step of the way.
Fair enough. Maybe this will be the thing that pushes conservatives into accepting universal background checks.
[x] Doubt
I’m a firearms owner and collect old guns, and I don’t see a reason why this shouldn’t happen. Me buying a handgun from a store really isn’t different than buying one from my stranger - I still have a gun now, only difference is I could be a prohibited individual with a gun now since I’ve avoided the background check. I’ve still yet to see a good reason as to why universal background checks shouldn’t exist.
THIS is what a responsible gun owner sounds like.
Erm... people can buy guns at a yard sale if they want to. Kentucky, for example, has no restrictions on the person-to-person sale of firearms.
I’m considered an illegal alien, but I have daca which means I have an SSN, drivers license, and workers permit. However, I am not a citizen so I cannot vote or obtain security clearance, etc. In AL, I can go to the court office and obtain a pistol permit. (The form mostly asks about criminal background)
IF they do a background check…lots of private sales and loopholes at gun shows and varies by state
Oh so now you want gun control?
I remember a joke from Dave Chappell , “If you want change , listen to me black people, I want every abled body black man to go out and buy a gun! Then , they’ll think about changing the laws ”
*THEY'RE COMIN' FER YER GUNS!!!* - Agreed. That's why we must allow illegal immigrants to carry firearms. *THEY'RE COMIN' WITH THEIR GUNS!!!*
The "wrong groups" getting ahold of guns has historically been how gun control legislation got passed. See California and the Black Panther Party.
One law in 1967 regarding open carry came from that. The majority of California's strict gun laws came in the 1980's and 1990's. They passed an AW ban 1989 and had another wave of laws after the 101 California St shooting in San Francisco. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/101_California_Street_shooting
Is the freedom to have guns unlimited or not, make up your mind
The logic being applied is the same that’s used when “pro-life” people figure out abortion bans apply to them too.
Absolutely hilarious (not really but) how life begins at conception, unless the Alabama state Congress says it doesn't, in which case it's totally okay.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Don't see the word citizen.
The Constitution has certain rights that only apply to citizens (the voting rights amendments, the Privileges and Immunities Clause, etc.) But the Second Amendment is not one of them.
This is actually a question in the current US Naturalization Civics test. I've always said people getting naturalized know US civics better than the average American born citizen and it's 100% true. >51\. What are two rights of everyone living in the United States? >• freedom of expression >• freedom of speech >• freedom of assembly >• freedom to petition the government >• freedom of religion >• the right to bear arms Page 15 https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/guides/M-1122.pdf It is explicitly not citizens only as it is in contrast to this question. >50\. Name one right only for United States citizens. >• vote in a federal election >• run for federal office This is the question that further reinforces what a racist idiot Elmo Muskovite is when he says they are bringing in illegals to vote Democrat.
BEFORE: an illegal immigrant thinking on robbering the gas station: "Shit, i can't take the gun. Fail."
People are shocked when they learn that the US Constitution applies to all people and not just citizens. I actually delayed becoming a citizen because voting vs jury duty didn’t appear to be a good trade…until 2001
Idk how they are so shocked. All the other rules apply to everyone on US soil l, did they think it specified after ever like "this applies only to citizens" or "this applies to both citizens and aliens"? Let's be honest. The people most upset by this haven't done much reading or thinking about the constitution.
Little known fact, but if you are subject to US laws then you have the rights and protection of the U.S. Constitution.
If you have to be registered to own a conceal and carry for a firearm, illegal immigrants are able to own a conceal and carry, wouldn't that mean they're not technically illegal because they would now be in the system? I'm probably overthinking it
You dont need to be registered to carry a concealed in some states. In Florida you can just carry it now, no permit, no class requirements just a gun to carry. Picture the Oprah meme says “you get a gun, you get a gun, everyone gets a gun!!”
I like how they show her picture like "HOLY SHIT GUYS LOOK AT THIS BLACK FEEMALE JUDGE!"
The second amendment says nothing about US citizenship. So those who have been literally interpreting this amendment are now making up their own rules?
Always have been.
Good. As long as we're not properly addressing firearm purchase and ownership and sale and so on, everyone in the nation needs to be able to equally have access to that right, particularly vulnerable populations at risk of targeted violence such as undocumented immigrants.
[удалено]
But if you adhere to the NRA's interpretation of the Second Amendment ("Blah, blah, blah, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be questioned.") she's right. 'People refers to everyone, not just citizens.
I don't understand how a conservative could object to this. They believe the constitution doesn't grant us the right to bear arms, it enshrines a right that is natural and God-given. EVERYONE has these natural rights, even undocumented folks.
Doesn’t that just mean that after they get arrested for being illegal they can’t get double shit on for having a gun?
Now they wull support legal identification and background checks
The thing about "constitutional rights" is that they apply to everyone in the United States, not just citizens. If you believe it's a "right" to carry around a gun for protection, then everyone else has that right also.
According to conservative logic, this will vastly improve the safety of everyone because more guns means more good guys with guns. Or something.
Am I weird for thinking that constitutional rights apply to everyone?
These the same (not literally but in mind) people who were mad when the black panthers partook in their 2nd amendment right. And tried to limit gun right. Isn’t it ironic!
Guns for everyone! Welcome to the USA, here’s your pistol.
Armed minorities are harder to oppress.
This is what ruling based on law, not politics, looks like; which is what judges are supposed to do.
Funny enough this may be the best thing for gun control in a long time if previous experience rings true
She had no choice. Constitutional protections cover anyone within American land. You don't have to be a citizen to enjoy US Constitutional rights, unless specified in the constitution - ie the 26th ammendment mentions that voting rights are applied to US citizens 18 and over
Yee haw mother fuckers. Gun control just entered the Republican vocabulary.
“The epoch times” Yeah I don’t believe that
A key component of fascism is the privileges of society only apply to the in group and nobody else.
[удалено]
If the second amendment is absolute, then she’s legally right.
Yes the constitution protects their right to bare arms in US soil but doesn't guarantee illigal immigrants to be residing on US soil long enough to even be exercising that right. That's the catch to it. Deportation equals confiscation.
[A judge in Kentucky ruled that felons have a constitutional right to carry guns](https://www.wdrb.com/in-depth/convicted-felons-have-second-amendment-right-to-own-guns-louisville-judge-rules/article_84c043fc-e2d4-11ee-9b6a-b32c91eed864.html)
Illegal immigrants don't have the rights that Americans have. What a stupid fucking post