This ascending scale of constitutional rights is elaborate.
Illegals ought to be able to carry. They may have broken the Law crossing the border, but no Law breaking ought to deprive an individual the Right to have, and carry a firearm(s).
It seems you are presuming that the only crime the individual has committed is unauthorized entry into the country.
The crime, any crime is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty. If the offense is barrable then I am for the most part in agreement with it. Crossing a border, or THE border, is not a felony, nor is it a violent crime.
We must disagree on this one, they illegals that came here knowing they where breaking the law have NO rights and should NOT have any rights.
Try this in any other country...go to Russia without permission and start claiming their rights, China?, how bought Iran...good luck. You won't find one country that allows an invasion of either a forign army or and individual rights that its citizens have.
The USA is the only country that has tried to help others and what has happened we are bankrupt, we have more illegals (CRIMINALS) than any other country.
It is like inviting your mother-in-law over to stay the night and she moves in permently. Soon you find your bags packed on the front porch.
CRIMINALS HERE ILLGALLY SHOULD GET NOTHING AND HAVE NO PROTECTION>>>>
IF THEY NEW THEY WOULD NOT GET PERTECTION OR HANDOUTS HOW MANY WOULD STILL COME HERE?
Other States are irrelevant, IMO. This is America, not Russia.
So, you agree that Rights are contingent then? Can we at least agree on that?
So a person ought to be denied the ability to self-preservation because they crossed the border illegally, rather than legally? Just trying to clear a couple of things up.
I think they should NOT be able to defend themselves if they are here ILLEGALLY. If they are worried about self-preservation they shouldn't be her ILLEGALLY in the first place.
Just because you cross a border (doesn't matter what county) doesn't give you that countries rights and protections. We can't save the whole world and we need to stop trying.
The crime, any crime is irrelevant. Innocent until proven guilty. If the offense is barrable then I am for the most part in agreement with it. Crossing a border, or THE border, is not a felony, nor is it a violent crime.
They broke a federal law by crossing illegally, so how could it not be a felony?
Felony is a condition of punishment, that is liable to more than 365 days incarceration. That precludes someone not (yet) convicted from being a felon.They broke a federal law by crossing illegally, so how could it not be a felony?
[snippers]
This stupid argument is predicated on natural rights versus constitutional rights and never will tweedledumb and tweedledumber meet.
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
So, you, as with I, agree that Rights are contingent. You are one of the only individuals on here that have admitted to agreeing with me, regarding Rights. Again, thank you.
By extension then, all Rights outlined within the Constitution are also contingent, and only offered to certain individuals, mainly, American citizens or those here legally; am I correct in understanding that that is also your position?
The sway of natural rights was declared in the Declaration of Independence with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
The sway of natural rights was declared in the Declaration of Independence with "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Uh huh....if your American.
Every person has the right to self defense, regardless of their ethnicity or origin of birth. Rights are NOT contingent, and they are not defined by geography, no matter how the world works.
I thought that was part of what made America great; that we recognized the rights of people, unlike Iran, China or Russia?
I thought we believed in liberty for all?
Illegals ought to be able to carry. They may have broken the Law crossing the border, but no Law breaking ought to deprive an individual the Right to have, and carry a firearm(s).