Court: Illegal immigrants can't have guns - Polidicks

An illegal person who came here ILLEGALLY won't think to ILLEGALLY get a gun?

Xenophobia which has now made it okay to ignore the bill of rights in select cases, and in a nation whose legislators are currently trying to empower the federal government with the ability to strip citizenship of any citizen (born or naturalized) under the auspices of Homeland Security. That you can just take away rights by taking away citizenship is a daaaaangerous precedence.

You guys know that making a 'meaningless' law isn't so meaningless when you're in court for both illegally living in the country and illegally owning a gun instead of just illegally living in a country. Unless I'm missing something (like gun permit laws not applying to them), illegal immigrants possessing weapons without permits are already violating those laws, so this is kind of just adding fuel to their prosecution.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35890855]You guys know that making a 'meaningless' law isn't so meaningless when you're in court for both illegally living in the country and illegally owning a gun instead of just illegally living in a country. Unless I'm missing something (like gun permit laws not applying to them), illegal immigrants possessing weapons without permits are already violating those laws, so this is kind of just adding fuel to their prosecution.[/QUOTE] Not really all that much different if it only results in deportation. Unless you want to start locking up illegal immigrants now. Because, you know, our prisons need to be more full.

[QUOTE=Greenen72;35890855]You guys know that making a 'meaningless' law isn't so meaningless when you're in court for both illegally living in the country and illegally owning a gun instead of just illegally living in a country. Unless I'm missing something (like gun permit laws not applying to them), illegal immigrants possessing weapons without permits are already violating those laws, so this is kind of just adding fuel to their prosecution.[/QUOTE] Citizens don't need a permit to own guns. Just to carry concealed, and the concealed carry law varies greatly from state to state.

[QUOTE=faze;35890921]Citizens don't need a permit to own guns. Just to carry.[/QUOTE] Uhm, no, not even that. Some states have their own regulations, but in most states you can open-carry with no permit. You [I]do[/I] need a permit to conceal the weapon on your person.

[QUOTE=Sanius;35878405]idk maybe if I hated brown people I would be able to understand your viewpoint better[/QUOTE] You should come be a politician or journalist in Sweden. [editline]9th May 2012[/editline] You'll fit right in. [editline]9th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;35887767]gun control will never work in any nation[/QUOTE] destroy all guns

[QUOTE=Hellsten;35890981] destroy all guns[/QUOTE] Yeah because that's a totally logical thing to do, people would never hide them and claim them to be stolen, or find ways to make guns themselves.

Well, it's a nice thought even if it can't be carried out. :)

[QUOTE=Hellsten;35891156]Well, it's a nice thought even if it can't be carried out. :)[/QUOTE] No it isn't. Guns are fun and millions of people enjoy them for sport. It's a stupid fucking idea.

[QUOTE=faze;35891174]No it isn't. Guns are fun and millions of people enjoy them for sport. It's a stupid fucking idea.[/QUOTE] Listen, I'm on the "yay gnus" side of this, but this is NOT the argument you want to be taking. You're implying guns are a consumer luxury, and they are not in the constitution as a consumer luxury. If that were the only reason guns are legal, because they're "fun," that argument would be obliterated and guns would be banned in a heartbeat. They are implements of death. Calling them anything else is asinine. Whatever ancillary purposes you find for them in your own home are irrelevant. They are designed as weapons to kill, and they are the most proficient such individual tool to have ever been invented to those ends. "Fun" is irrelevant. They are inherently dangerous. Anyone who carries one is inherently dangerous and disproportionately empowered. They aren't in the Constitution for fucking hunting and shit. Try arguing that drugs should be legal because they're fun and many people enjoy them. Yeah, doesn't work. That attitude dilutes the issue and it gives your opponents a VERY easy target.

-snip- Page jump.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35891385]Listen, I'm on the "yay gnus" side of this, but this is NOT the argument you want to be taking. You're implying guns are a consumer luxury, and they are not in the constitution as a consumer luxury. If that were the only reason guns are legal, because they're "fun," that argument would be obliterated and guns would be banned in a heartbeat. They are implements of death. Calling them anything else is asinine. Whatever ancillary purposes you find for them in your own home are irrelevant. They are designed as weapons to kill, and they are the most proficient such individual tool to have ever been invented to those ends. "Fun" is irrelevant. They are inherently dangerous. Anyone who carries one is inherently dangerous and disproportionately empowered. They aren't in the Constitution for fucking hunting and shit. Try arguing that drugs should be legal because they're fun and many people enjoy them. Yeah, doesn't work. That attitude dilutes the issue and it gives your opponents a VERY easy target.[/QUOTE] Carrying a gun doesn't make anybody dangerous. Honest people carrying guns do it for the protection of themselves and others. Plus, in states where carrying a gun is easy to do legally, robbers will think twice before robbing your ass. Statistics prove it.

[QUOTE=faze;35891472]Carrying a gun doesn't make anybody dangerous.[/QUOTE] Yes it does. That's why they're [I]in[/I] the United States Constitution. To empower the People. The Second Amendment does not exist for sport, self-defense or collectors. It is in there to give the People the ability to seriously fuck shit up if they ever need to. Arguing that guns are not dangerous degrades the very reason that they are in the Bill of Rights, right there next to "militia" and "security of a free state." Do you think militias are fun hobby groups? No. They're fucking dangerous paramilitary forces. Those are the ends to which the Second Amendment was written. To give something inherently dangerous and powerful to the People; to ensure that, should the need for the people to be dangerous ever arise, the people will make a dangerous foe. Self Defense can be banned. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have that right. Hunting can be banned. Collecting can be banned. And if they ever are banned, then by your logic, no reason remains to permit the ownership of firearms.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35891525]Yes it does. That's why they're [I]in[/I] the United States Constitution. To empower the People. The Second Amendment does not exist for sport, self-defense or collectors. It is in there to give the People the ability to seriously fuck shit up if they ever need to. Arguing that guns are not dangerous degrades the very reason that they are in the Bill of Rights, right there next to "militia" and "security of a free state." Do you think militias are fun hobby groups? No. They're fucking dangerous paramilitary forces. Those are the ends to which the Second Amendment was written. To give something inherently dangerous and powerful to the People; to ensure that, should the need for the people to be dangerous ever arise, the people will make a dangerous foe. Self Defense can be banned. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have that right. Hunting can be banned. Collecting can be banned. And if they ever are banned, then by your logic, no reason remains to permit the ownership of firearms.[/QUOTE] Just because somebody is carrying doesn't make them "armed and dangerous" they're simply armed. Carrying a gun doesn't make you out to kill anybody. In most cases, it is more along the lines of "better safe than sorry."

[QUOTE=Lankist;35891525]Self Defense can be banned. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say you have that right. Hunting can be banned. Collecting can be banned. And if they ever are banned, then by your logic, no reason remains to permit the ownership of firearms.[/QUOTE] Woah woah woah. Agree with you on everything else, but "it's not mentioned in the Constitution" is mentioned in the Constitution. You could never just ban self defense. [QUOTE=faze;35891603]Just because somebody is carrying doesn't make them "armed and dangerous" they're simply armed. Carrying a gun doesn't make you out to kill anybody. In most cases, it is more along the lines of "better safe than sorry."[/QUOTE] Whoooooooooosh. [editline]1[/editline] [QUOTE=Sanius;35888340]I don't think we understand statistics enough to be talking about them gunfox or xenocidebot to the rescue[/QUOTE] It's just Protocol not understanding how these stats are constructed, which is fair enough considering Sob didn't post the actual source (and is using an outdated one). [QUOTE=Protocol7;35888352]There is every reason to believe that the results could be skewed because one test sample had more firearms than another would.[/QUOTE] It isn't a "sample", those stats come from each nation's population data and total violent crime data, and then an average is produced. There's no bias whatsoever, because it's generated from the total amount of such incidents by country. Unless you're trying to argue that having more people leads to more violent crime per person, but that's proven wrong by the spread of crime in the U.S. being one of geographic distribution, not population by state.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35891699]Woah woah woah. Agree with you on everything else, but "it's not mentioned in the Constitution" is mentioned in the Constitution. You could never just ban self defense.[/QUOTE] It's mentioned as being at the discretion of the government for the security of a free state, or otherwise granted to the states. Pal, if it isn't explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, you better not pin your hopes on it. [editline]9th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=faze;35891603]Just because somebody is carrying doesn't make them "armed and dangerous" they're simply armed. Carrying a gun doesn't make you out to kill anybody. In most cases, it is more along the lines of "better safe than sorry."[/QUOTE] Point's just going right over your head, ain't it? Arguing that guns aren't dangerous is a losing argument, pal. It simply is. The entirety of the rest of the world [I]and[/I] the courts and laws of our own country disagree with you. Your delusion of the issue will not affect it in the slightest.

Fire Arms, Bear Arms, what's next, taking away Stretchy Arms or Web-Flinging Arms? It's really hard to be a superhero nowadays.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35891385]Listen, I'm on the "yay gnus" side of this, but this is NOT the argument you want to be taking. You're implying guns are a consumer luxury, and they are not in the constitution as a consumer luxury. If that were the only reason guns are legal, because they're "fun," that argument would be obliterated and guns would be banned in a heartbeat. They are implements of death. Calling them anything else is asinine. Whatever ancillary purposes you find for them in your own home are irrelevant. They are designed as weapons to kill, and they are the most proficient such individual tool to have ever been invented to those ends. "Fun" is irrelevant. They are inherently dangerous. Anyone who carries one is inherently dangerous and disproportionately empowered. They aren't in the Constitution for fucking hunting and shit. Try arguing that drugs should be legal because they're fun and many people enjoy them. Yeah, doesn't work. That attitude dilutes the issue and it gives your opponents a VERY easy target.[/QUOTE] I somewhat agree with you, but stating a gun is 'inherently dangerous' - not really. A firearm is a lump of steel and wood or plastic until a person gets behind it. A firearm cannot load, chamber, or fire itself. I also disagree with your statement about me being disproportionately empowered and inherently dangerous. I carry a firearm every day, for my own reasons. I have the permit required to do so. I have weapons training above what your average joe would have (I'm not military but I've been to multiple training courses, and have taken the time to visit the range and learn from several ex-military and ex-police shooters for months on end), and know firearm safety in and out. I am not dangerous to any average person walking down the sidewalk. I'm not a gunfighter in the west, I don't draw on anyone that pisses me off or looks at me funny. Lankist, there are people out there that fit your description there ('inherently dangerous'), but using a blanket statement to cover anyone and everyone that carries a firearm - I'd expect better from you. :v:

[QUOTE=massn7;35901761]I somewhat agree with you, but stating a gun is 'inherently dangerous' - not really. A firearm is a lump of steel and wood or plastic until a person gets behind it. A firearm cannot load, chamber, or fire itself. I also disagree with your statement about me being disproportionately empowered and inherently dangerous. I carry a firearm every day, for my own reasons. I have the permit required to do so. I have weapons training above what your average joe would have (I'm not military but I've been to multiple training courses, and have taken the time to visit the range and learn from several ex-military and ex-police shooters for months on end), and know firearm safety in and out. I am not dangerous to any average person walking down the sidewalk. I'm not a gunfighter in the west, I don't draw on anyone that pisses me off or looks at me funny. Lankist, there are people out there that fit your description there ('inherently dangerous'), but using a blanket statement to cover anyone and everyone that carries a firearm - I'd expect better from you. :v:[/QUOTE] No you just sound like a dude with self-esteem issues. And you are more dangerous for it. Listen. I don't know why on Earth you'd be carrying a gun around that you don't need, but that still makes you dangerous. One wrong move, misfire. One misjudgement, gun is drawn and somebody is shot. You are extremely disproportionately empowered when you have a firearm on your hip. You have more power than pretty much everyone around you. Don't pretend that isn't why you do it, and don't pretend that doesn't make you dangerous.

I wonder why the argument for keeping guns is so that the citizen has the power to overthrow the government. Professionally trained soldiers usually make minemeat of loose bands of citizen militias. The only times in history where militias win is because the professional army is one or more of the following: 1. Has incompetent generals or poorly trained soldiers. 2. Poorly supplied and maintained. 3. A large foreign event weakens the national army/state to the point citizens can take over. Allowing private citizens to keep firearms doesn't really empower them at all.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903003]No you just sound like a dude with self-esteem issues. And you are more dangerous for it. Listen. I don't know why on Earth you'd be carrying a gun around that you don't need, but that still makes you dangerous. One wrong move, misfire. One misjudgement, gun is drawn and somebody is shot. You are extremely disproportionately empowered when you have a firearm on your hip. You have more power than pretty much everyone around you. Don't pretend that isn't why you do it, and don't pretend that doesn't make you dangerous.[/QUOTE] What about self defense?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35903061]I wonder why the argument for keeping guns is so that the citizen has the power to overthrow the government. Professionally trained soldiers usually make minemeat of loose bands of citizen militias. The only times in history where militias win is because the professional army is one or more of the following: 1. Has incompetent generals or poorly trained soldiers. 2. Poorly supplied and maintained. 3. A large foreign event weakens the national army/state to the point citizens can take over. Allowing private citizens to keep firearms doesn't really empower them at all.[/QUOTE] It's about power, not effectiveness. And I'd like you to try to find a soldier in a volunteer military who is willing to open fire on the civilian populace at large, let alone a [I]conscript.[/I] The moment the military starts opening fire on citizens is the moment the military starts falling apart. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Noble;35903132]What about self defense?[/QUOTE] They aren't in the Bill of Rights for self defense. They're in the Bill of Rights to grant a disproportionate amount of power to the People. Arguing for guns as self defense is not an argument for guns, it's an argument for better police. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] Furthermore, illegal immigrants maintain the ability to defend themselves. So if we have guns for that purpose, why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903003]No you just sound like a dude with self-esteem issues. And you are more dangerous for it. Listen. I don't know why on Earth you'd be carrying a gun around that you don't need, but that still makes you dangerous. One wrong move, misfire. One misjudgement, gun is drawn and somebody is shot. You are extremely disproportionately empowered when you have a firearm on your hip. You have more power than pretty much everyone around you. Don't pretend that isn't why you do it, and don't pretend that doesn't make you dangerous.[/QUOTE] You assume a lot. I don't 'pretend' to do anything, and how do you know I don't need it? I actually live out in the country, and I somewhat frequently come across things that require the use of the firearm. Snakes, coyotes, and rarely mountain lions. And before someone gets their panties in a twist, no, I don't go out of my way to shoot these things - but they can be aggressive and I have been in situations that required me to use the weapon. As for your misfire comment - I don't carry my firearm with a round chambered. Perhaps you'd like to explain how my inherently dangerous weapon can chamber itself and then misfire on its own. I'm not some eighteen year old kid that just picked up a .45 waving it around 'gangsta' style showing off for his buddies. It's in a holster, out of sight, no round chambered, safety on. And please do tell how you derive self esteem issues from carrying a firearm. Forgive me for playing it smart and having something that I can use to defend myself should the need arise. People like you, with your kneejerk reactions and arguments loaded with assumptions are the problem.

[QUOTE=massn7;35903376]You assume a lot. I don't 'pretend' to do anything, and how do you know I don't need it? I actually live out in the country, and I somewhat frequently come across things that require the use of the firearm. Snakes, coyotes, and rarely mountain lions. And before someone gets their panties in a twist, no, I don't go out of my way to shoot these things - but they can be aggressive and I have been in situations that required me to use the weapon. As for your misfire comment - I don't carry my firearm with a round chambered. Perhaps you'd like to explain how my inherently dangerous weapon can chamber itself and then misfire on its own. I'm not some eighteen year old kid that just picked up a .45 waving it around 'gangsta' style showing off for his buddies. It's in a holster, out of sight, no round chambered, safety on. And please do tell how you derive self esteem issues from carrying a firearm. Forgive me for playing it smart and having something that I can use to defend myself should the need arise. People like you, with your kneejerk reactions and arguments loaded with assumptions are the problem.[/QUOTE] Really? Because I lived out in the country too and I never had to whip out my gat at the local wildlife. And you'd treat a bomb as dangerous even if its fuse were not lit. That is, unless you're downright dumb.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903247] They aren't in the Bill of Rights for self defense. They're in the Bill of Rights to grant a disproportionate amount of power to the People. Arguing for guns as self defense is not an argument for guns, it's an argument for better police. [editline]10th May 2012[/editline] Furthermore, illegal immigrants maintain the ability to defend themselves. So if we have guns for that purpose, why shouldn't they be allowed to have them?[/QUOTE] Well I was mainly talking about ethical and moral reasons for carrying a gun around, not really so much US legal reasons. Unless the police are going to have the ability to respond literally instantly to a life or death situation, we're probably going to need "disproportionate power" to defend ourselves from harm. And they shouldn't be allowed to have them because we lack the ability to run accurate background checks on them

[QUOTE=Noble;35903388]And they shouldn't be allowed to have them because we lack the ability to run accurate background checks on them[/QUOTE] And if we could? If background checks no longer required the seller to report unauthorized residents to the authorities, and the individual had an otherwise clean record? Would you allow them to own firearms then?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903386]Really? Because I lived out in the country too and I never had to whip out my gat at the local wildlife. And you'd treat a bomb as dangerous even if its fuse were not lit. That is, unless you're downright dumb.[/QUOTE] Yeah, really. That's good for you, but I have been in situations that required it. And duh, Lankist.

[QUOTE=massn7;35903402]Yeah, really. That's good for you, but I have been in situations that required it. And duh, Lankist.[/QUOTE] So you're saying one weapon is dangerous and the other isn't. Guns are a fucking weapon. You don't deserve to handle one if you do not treat them with the proper respect. This attitude of "they aren't dangerous GOP NRA HOOAH!" is fucking absurd. They're dangerous implements designed to kill. You can't properly handle them if you don't respect that. That alone [I]DOES[/I] make you dangerous. It makes you ignorant of the tool you are wielding, and that's far and away MORE dangerous than anyone with a firearm that understands what they are.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35903401]And if we could? If background checks no longer required the seller to report unauthorized residents to the authorities, and the individual had an otherwise clean record? Would you allow them to own firearms then?[/QUOTE] Sure, because the only reason that comes to mind (at this moment) for not allowing illegals to buy weapons would be the issue of background checks.