-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Feds Sentence Two Illegal Immigrants for Carrying Nearly 150 Assault Rifles Into U.S. FoxNews.com
- Thread starter Doug Huffman
- Start date
ak56
Campaign Veteran
imported post
Oh, the wonderful job the news media does these days.
According to the caption, they carried the guns into the U.S.:
Oh, the wonderful job the news media does these days.
According to the caption, they carried the guns into the U.S.:
According to the article, they were destined for Mexico:
Somehow, I doubt that they brought them to the U.S. from Mexico so they could turn around and bring them back to Mexico.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
Just another violation of our rights.... I wonder if theywill give them back there guns after their 10 and 45 days?
Just another violation of our rights.... I wonder if theywill give them back there guns after their 10 and 45 days?
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
It's amazing two men get charged with entering the U.S. illeagally (impossible in my book) and all the sudden we need to ban "assault weapons". How in the world would a ban have changed this event? what were the "assualt weapons" that they had? (not that it matters) pistols? .22's?
They can ban all they want, I'll still have mine!
It's amazing two men get charged with entering the U.S. illeagally (impossible in my book) and all the sudden we need to ban "assault weapons". How in the world would a ban have changed this event? what were the "assualt weapons" that they had? (not that it matters) pistols? .22's?
They can ban all they want, I'll still have mine!
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
steveman01 wrote:
Are you saying it is impossible to enter the US illegally, or to get charged for entering the US illegally?
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
Well if it's illegal then it's impossible, or at least that's the way anti's think.
No I'm saying that there is no way to enter this country "illegally", just as there is nothing illegal about keeping and bearing arms. The only thing illegal is the g'ment "claiming" the power to enact laws restricting such things.
I think there are to many people out there that think rights are not "human rights", but are rights that belongonly people that fit a certain criteria. That's why I wrote the"in my book", I know that the majority of people disagree with me. I believe thatall humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
key words for my reasoning are in bold, for any who wish to know.
buster81 wrote:
Well if it's illegal then it's impossible, or at least that's the way anti's think.
No I'm saying that there is no way to enter this country "illegally", just as there is nothing illegal about keeping and bearing arms. The only thing illegal is the g'ment "claiming" the power to enact laws restricting such things.
I think there are to many people out there that think rights are not "human rights", but are rights that belongonly people that fit a certain criteria. That's why I wrote the"in my book", I know that the majority of people disagree with me. I believe thatall humans are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights.
key words for my reasoning are in bold, for any who wish to know.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
steveman01 wrote:
Are you saying that immigration law is against the inalienable rights of individuals not citizens of the US? Ie. the border should be wide open for any and all to enter whenever they like.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
100% correctomundo!! Are they not human rights? I am one to beleive they are, as it was written, Though like I said many disagree. Apparently they want to throw the BOR and DOI in the trash, or pick and choose what fits there wishes. They sound like denominations to me.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
steveman01 wrote:
An interesting argument. Which part of the BOR isfree entry into the country without inspection defined?
Citizen
Founder's Club Member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
It isn't defined. Yet, 9A is pretty broad.
I see Steveman's point. Nonetheless, the rest of us have an enumerated right to freedom of association which includes non-association.
In a perfect world, there would be no serious reason to restrict migration, in or out. In this world, with numerous cultures not appreciating all freedoms, being economically uneducated (socialists), and so forth, unrestricted immigration can quickly undo the whole game.
buster81 wrote:
It isn't defined. Yet, 9A is pretty broad.
I see Steveman's point. Nonetheless, the rest of us have an enumerated right to freedom of association which includes non-association.
In a perfect world, there would be no serious reason to restrict migration, in or out. In this world, with numerous cultures not appreciating all freedoms, being economically uneducated (socialists), and so forth, unrestricted immigration can quickly undo the whole game.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
That would be the 4th and the 9th as citizen so kindly added. Keep in mind It's the right of the people, not the right of the citizens or for that matter the right of the any other criteria one might be inclined to throw in. And those rights are inalienable, so because one is an alien does not take away his rights as a human as listed in the BOR.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
Citizen wrote:
I do share your fears but that is why we have the BOR. We just have to fight tooth and limb for it! Literally, the founders told us of this. Wehave neverstopped people from coming here because of their economic beliefs or any other, nor should we, nor can we. It's a waist of time and money. Much like the "drug war" it only makes room for more government. Pretty soon all you have is government.
No amount of restriction will stop them, as we can see. And we know from experience (gun-freezones)that just because something is claimed to be illegal doesn't mean it will stop anyone. We just have to deal with infringement's as they come up. If one of them infringes on an others' rights, throw them in jail. Until then leave'm alone. That's how I'd like to be treated.
We would not have a BOR if it were not for the 9A. As the founders were afraid to enumerate rights, because they knew it's impossible to list them all. So they wrote the 9th to cover all the things not listed,we take for granted, and the unimaginable (future). To bad it's pretty much none exist ant now.
Citizen wrote:
I do share your fears but that is why we have the BOR. We just have to fight tooth and limb for it! Literally, the founders told us of this. Wehave neverstopped people from coming here because of their economic beliefs or any other, nor should we, nor can we. It's a waist of time and money. Much like the "drug war" it only makes room for more government. Pretty soon all you have is government.
No amount of restriction will stop them, as we can see. And we know from experience (gun-freezones)that just because something is claimed to be illegal doesn't mean it will stop anyone. We just have to deal with infringement's as they come up. If one of them infringes on an others' rights, throw them in jail. Until then leave'm alone. That's how I'd like to be treated.
We would not have a BOR if it were not for the 9A. As the founders were afraid to enumerate rights, because they knew it's impossible to list them all. So they wrote the 9th to cover all the things not listed,we take for granted, and the unimaginable (future). To bad it's pretty much none exist ant now.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
Prior to the BOR, didn't the colonies make up their own rules with regard to who was allowed in? Something about good character and all.
You may have a point though.However, I'll stick with the concerns of some of the founding fathers. It's my belief that if the door were to be left wide open, wewouldn't need to worry about debating the BOR.
Prior to the BOR, didn't the colonies make up their own rules with regard to who was allowed in? Something about good character and all.
You may have a point though.However, I'll stick with the concerns of some of the founding fathers. It's my belief that if the door were to be left wide open, wewouldn't need to worry about debating the BOR.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
buster81 wrote:
buster81 wrote:
The doors been open for over 200yrs. Why else would they be making a big stink about closing it. Andjust how did all these immigrants get here? How did I get here?:lol: (no I'm not an immigrant, butgreat grandparentswere)I don't see what the big deal is, the only problem I see is government tyranny. Just like the drug war, gun laws, and so forth, good intentions but bad results. What about before immigration was "regulated"? I feel your using the same reasoning as the "gun-grabbers". Some how if it's illegal we are magically safer... It's still the same old trade off, essential liberty for security. As the founders said all we'd get is tyranny, as we have. It's really quite simple, just use the same logic you would for the 2A. Rights are Rights, right? And should we not be able to migrate from state to state freely? I fail to see the difference between me going to Ohio, and a foreigner doing the same. Are we not bothmen? What concerns of the founders is it you speak of? I thought the biggest was that we would have the balls to protect our freedom as they did and so readily died for.
Doug Huffman
Banned
imported post
Very interesting, that an effective physical barrier is required to avoid abrogating rights.
Very interesting, that an effective physical barrier is required to avoid abrogating rights.
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
Perhaps the issue of immigration could be more easily understood if countries were to be considered the same as your own home... your house.
Should anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere have the right to come into your home, sleep in your bed, eat your food, and fart on your couch? And expect you to pay for their health care, learn their language, put up signs in their language, and adopt their homeland customs? And do all that while not contributing any money to fix the roof because they sent it back to their homeland?
Perhaps the issue of immigration could be more easily understood if countries were to be considered the same as your own home... your house.
Should anyone and everyone from anywhere and everywhere have the right to come into your home, sleep in your bed, eat your food, and fart on your couch? And expect you to pay for their health care, learn their language, put up signs in their language, and adopt their homeland customs? And do all that while not contributing any money to fix the roof because they sent it back to their homeland?
eye95
Well-known member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
God-given rights (I hate the term "human rights;" the left has so corrupted the term) include the ability to protect property (using fences, walls, borders, etc.) against intruders and thieves. That right extends from individuals to groups of individuals, all the way to sovereign nations.
steveman01 wrote:
Nope. Not a human right any more than someone has a human right to come into your home at will.
God-given rights (I hate the term "human rights;" the left has so corrupted the term) include the ability to protect property (using fences, walls, borders, etc.) against intruders and thieves. That right extends from individuals to groups of individuals, all the way to sovereign nations.
buster81
Regular Member
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
I guess I got to the wrong door, because when I immigrated it took several years, dozens of forms and thousands of dollars in addition tothe extensive background checks etc.The ride wasn't free.
Was immigration not regulated in some form before the colonieswere states? It seems to me, only people of "good character" were allowed in. Perhaps not.
The concerns of the founding fathers were those of Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. Perhaps more. Who knows, they might have been wrong... maybeabout lots of stuff.
Anyway, I already said you might have a point, and you might.
steveman01 wrote:
I guess I got to the wrong door, because when I immigrated it took several years, dozens of forms and thousands of dollars in addition tothe extensive background checks etc.The ride wasn't free.
Was immigration not regulated in some form before the colonieswere states? It seems to me, only people of "good character" were allowed in. Perhaps not.
The concerns of the founding fathers were those of Jefferson, Hamilton and Washington. Perhaps more. Who knows, they might have been wrong... maybeabout lots of stuff.
Anyway, I already said you might have a point, and you might.
steveman01
Regular Member
imported post
I feel there is a big difference between my home and the country. My home is private property, but the country I see as public property. And public property should be open to the public (all). This world belongs to god, Who are we to say who can live where? And how is it I have more right to be in this country than a Frenchman? Because I was born here? HAH! We are both men, and given life by the same creator.They have the same god givens rights that I do. So I don't see how one can say it is not a right. Sure they have no right to enter on my property, but if they buy their own what's the big deal? What right do you have to tell them they can not live on their own property or enter on public? So do men have a right to property? Or is it only some men?
I'm all for protecting against foreign invasion, but not foreign immigration. So I think someone coming into my home and "farting on my couch":lol: (LMAO) is a bit different from someone farting on a bench in a public park. Yes they may suck our wel-fare states dry but so do many of our citizens. The better question is should we have a wel-fare state?
(I don't know much about this) Would a foreigner who ownsasmall homein lets say Utah, still be considered an illegal alien if he comes here by chopper (no papers of course), and lands on his property?What about off it?That would justbe wrong to own a homein Utahbut not be able to live there legally. Just curious...
In the case of the OP I see there were no charges other than entering the U.S. illegally. I guess they recognized that the god given rights (to arms at least)apply to all men!:celebrate
We know that firearm laws only restrict law abiding people, why would it be any different for immigration laws? I guess for those that are just looking for a false sense of security it works much like a placebo.
Buster, I'm still curious as to what concerns of the founders specifically (not whose')your mentioning?
I feel there is a big difference between my home and the country. My home is private property, but the country I see as public property. And public property should be open to the public (all). This world belongs to god, Who are we to say who can live where? And how is it I have more right to be in this country than a Frenchman? Because I was born here? HAH! We are both men, and given life by the same creator.They have the same god givens rights that I do. So I don't see how one can say it is not a right. Sure they have no right to enter on my property, but if they buy their own what's the big deal? What right do you have to tell them they can not live on their own property or enter on public? So do men have a right to property? Or is it only some men?
I'm all for protecting against foreign invasion, but not foreign immigration. So I think someone coming into my home and "farting on my couch":lol: (LMAO) is a bit different from someone farting on a bench in a public park. Yes they may suck our wel-fare states dry but so do many of our citizens. The better question is should we have a wel-fare state?
(I don't know much about this) Would a foreigner who ownsasmall homein lets say Utah, still be considered an illegal alien if he comes here by chopper (no papers of course), and lands on his property?What about off it?That would justbe wrong to own a homein Utahbut not be able to live there legally. Just curious...
In the case of the OP I see there were no charges other than entering the U.S. illegally. I guess they recognized that the god given rights (to arms at least)apply to all men!:celebrate
We know that firearm laws only restrict law abiding people, why would it be any different for immigration laws? I guess for those that are just looking for a false sense of security it works much like a placebo.
Buster, I'm still curious as to what concerns of the founders specifically (not whose')your mentioning?
B
Bikenut
Guest
imported post
steveman01 wrote:
The legally protected right to keep and bear arms and the God given right to self defense are not the same thing.
Now... I'll say this to you Sir... if you think that anyone, anywhere, has the God given right to come into the U.S. just because they are a human being let me suggest that you personally invite an illegal alien and his family into your own house... and pay for their food, their schooling, their health care, their clothing, and let them fart on your couch... all on your own dime.
Because there is no difference between doing that as an individual in your own house and expecting the group of individuals called the "citizens" to do it in their own country.
steveman01 wrote:
You Sir, are confusing God given rights with written legal rights. Even here all people have the God given right to defend themselves.... but luckily our forefathers were wise enough to understand that arms are the most effective means of doing that so they wrote a protection from the government stopping citizens from using arms....
The legally protected right to keep and bear arms and the God given right to self defense are not the same thing.
Now... I'll say this to you Sir... if you think that anyone, anywhere, has the God given right to come into the U.S. just because they are a human being let me suggest that you personally invite an illegal alien and his family into your own house... and pay for their food, their schooling, their health care, their clothing, and let them fart on your couch... all on your own dime.
Because there is no difference between doing that as an individual in your own house and expecting the group of individuals called the "citizens" to do it in their own country.