Court: Illegal immigrants can't have guns - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35905581]Provided the relevant populace was powerless to start with.[/QUOTE] It's quite easy for a state to make the powerful powerless, given time. A gun won't save somebody from increasing government interference. [QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35905581]As your point only holds due to personal ignorance, rebuttals are focused on personal ignorance. You might want to say something less banal if you can't handle criticism.[/QUOTE] Not too sure how exactly my point holds due to ignorance.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;35911909]It's quite easy for a state to make the powerful powerless, given time. A gun won't save somebody from increasing government interference. Not too sure how exactly my point holds due to ignorance.[/QUOTE] The idea that in a country such as the US, where the military doesn't live in mansions compared to the rest of the population, would attack their own citizens, their neighbors, their countrymen is ignorant. The only reason it works in some country's is because being in the military means being provided with luxury no one else in the country has.

[QUOTE=mobrockers2;35912045]The idea that in a country such as the US, where the military doesn't live in mansions compared to the rest of the population, would attack their own citizens, their neighbors, their countrymen is ignorant. The only reason it works in some country's is because being in the military means being provided with luxury no one else in the country has.[/QUOTE] This is assuming it would stay in the current situation, and would not gradually become despotic. If it were to become repressive to the point the people would rise in force with firearms, then by that stage the army would have also changed.

Because globalization isn't a thing, and populations are incapable of shifting out of developed nations if they begin to "slide backwards." [QUOTE]Not too sure how exactly my point holds due to ignorance.[/QUOTE] You should start getting the hint.

[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;35916618]You should start getting the hint.[/QUOTE] I require elaboration.

[QUOTE=Sanius;35878405]that makes no sense there's just as much a point for an illegal to own a gun as there is for a legal to own a gun [editline]1[/editline] idk maybe if I hated brown people I would be able to understand your viewpoint better[/QUOTE] Your title fits so well..

[QUOTE=Lankist;35904317]Tell that to massn7's mountain lion. I don't really care what you think of it. I'm telling you why it's there and how it works.[/QUOTE] It's funny til it comes after your dog and almost kills it. You can think what you want, but you don't have to be an ass about it. [quote=Broseph_]What the fuck is a semi-automatic firearm then?[/quote] Seriously?

[QUOTE=massn7;35921926]It's funny til it comes after your dog and almost kills it. You can think what you want, but you don't have to be an ass about it.[/QUOTE] I think you're pretty stupid if you've dropped a mountain lion and you still think about guns like they're toys.

So wait, were illegals allowed to have firearms before this? If so, what the FUCK, America?

[QUOTE='Rain [Amber];35922940']So wait, were illegals allowed to have firearms before this?[/QUOTE] No.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35906404]The Texas state constitution does not override the U.S. Constitution, nor does it overrule federal law. If the Supreme Court says your constitution is bullshit, you just gotta deal w/ it.[/QUOTE] Beard v. U.S. (1895), and Brown v. United States (1921). Also how the fuck can they declare a state's bill of rights to be unconstitutional? Especially considering the fact the FEDERAL constitution doesn't mention self defense in the slightest giving the States jurisdiction over the matter under the 10th amendment outside of federal property. Also I didn't mean to apply it applied to the FEDERAL government, I meant the STATE government, so unless I cap a interstate traveler or federal official, the Federal government has no jurisdiction.

I'm sorry, how are either of those cases relevant to the Supremacy Clause and/or fourteenth amendment?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35945961]I'm sorry, how are either of those cases relevant to the Supremacy Clause and/or fourteenth amendment?[/QUOTE] Self defense is recognized by the Supreme Court of these United States as providing one immunity from federal law, so how can self defense being enshrined in a state's constitution as a right for the citizens of that state, be held in anyway to be unconstitutional by the federal courts without great folly, and in the same, how can federal courts in anyway declare the right to self defense to be invalid when they them selves have ruled it to be lawful, aswell as making it the basis of declaring gun bans in Washington DC and Chicago to be unconstitutional, inasmuch make any attempt to make self defense illegal be ment as unconstitutional as well. Rather or not the fourteenth amendment and supremacy clause apply is irrelavent as Texas Constitution fully Incorporates the U.S. constitution against the state. [editline]13th May 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Lankist;35922951]No.[/QUOTE] Actually they were, that is assuming they held a hunting License issued by the State of California.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35945961]I'm sorry, how are either of those cases relevant to the Supremacy Clause and/or fourteenth amendment?[/QUOTE] How does any of that, or the post in question, have to do with this thread? Y'all talking about state constitutions being VOID'd by the government

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35947064]Self defense is recognized by the Supreme Court of these United States as providing one immunity from federal law, so how can self defense being enshrined in a state's constitution as a right for the citizens of that state, be held in anyway to be unconstitutional by the federal courts without great folly, and in the same, how can federal courts in anyway declare the right to self defense to be invalid when they them selves have ruled it to be lawful, aswell as making it the basis of declaring gun bans in Washington DC and Chicago to be unconstitutional, inasmuch make any attempt to make self defense illegal be ment as unconstitutional as well. Rather or not the fourteenth amendment and supremacy clause apply is irrelavent as Texas Constitution fully Incorporates the U.S. constitution against the state.[/QUOTE] Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said national law overrides state law in all situations. What the hell does any of that have to do with anything?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947158]Again, that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I said national law overrides state law in all situations. What the hell does any of that have to do with anything?[/QUOTE] National law doesn't override shit until the federal has jurisdiction over the matter, until then they can't just go in and override and repeal laws unilaterally like the Supreme Court can't just randomly decide to overturn federal laws until they are the subject of a case appealed to them.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35947180]National law doesn't override shit until the federal has jurisdiction over the matter, until then they can't just go in and override and repeal laws unilaterally like the Supreme Court can't just randomly decide to overturn federal laws until they are the subject of a case appealed to them.[/QUOTE] Supremacy clause. Federal law has jurisdiction over everything. [I]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.[/I] This was later expanded by the fourteenth amendment. All federal law, precedence, and rulings automatically invalidate any conflicting local or state law, precedence or rulings in absolutely all cases.

[QUOTE=Sanius;35878405]that makes no sense there's just as much a point for an illegal to own a gun as there is for a legal to own a gun [editline]1[/editline] idk maybe if I hated brown people I would be able to understand your viewpoint better[/QUOTE] I'm all for illegal immigrants being helped out, and not deported, and for trying to solve the problems that make them enter the US. However, it's fucking insane to think it's alright to allow them to walk around the nation with a gun when they entered it without our knowing. They could be criminals, unstable, or, considering they're likely in the economic shitter, more liable to use it to kill someone. If we don't know who they are, where they came from or what their intent is, I don't want them carrying a fucking gun.

[QUOTE=Arachnidus;35947189]If we don't know who they are, where they came from or what their intent is, I don't want them carrying a fucking gun.[/QUOTE] That isn't how rights work. You can't just decide who does and does not have them. It's either everyone or no one.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947187]Supremacy clause. Federal law has jurisdiction over everything. [I]This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.[/I] This was later expanded by the fourteenth amendment. All federal law, precedence, and rulings automatically invalidate any conflicting local or state law, precedence or rulings in absolutely all cases.[/QUOTE] In theory maybe, Except in practice they don't, and to my knowledge in Texas police officers have no jurisdiction to enforce federal law, and Federal agents have no jurisdiction to enforce federal laws unless a state line has been crossed by some party or item to a crime.

[QUOTE=Broseph_;35947263]In theory maybe, Except in practice they don't[/QUOTE] Uhm, yes they do. All the fucking time. Do you even know what the Supreme Court DOES? It's entirely empowered by the supremacy clause. Find me one instance of a state successfully spurning federal law to this day. Because the most notable case of which that I recall involved the 101st Airborne being deployed to Alabama.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947272]Uhm, yes they do. All the fucking time. Do you even know what the Supreme Court DOES? It's entirely empowered by the supremacy clause. Find me one instance of a state successfully spurning federal law to this day.[/QUOTE] Yes, the supreme court makes the final decision on cases that are deemed unconstitutional by lower-courts. Once they make their ruling on that case, its settled (and most of the time, a law is changed because of it ie. Terry v Ohio)

[QUOTE=areolop;35947289]Yes, the supreme court makes the final decision on cases that are deemed unconstitutional by lower-courts. Once they make their ruling on that case, its settled (and most of the time, a law is changed because of it ie. Terry v Ohio)[/QUOTE] It isn't just the supreme court, that is merely an example. Constitutionally, [I]all[/I] federal law is supreme. No state or local law can contradict it and for any state enforcing contradictory law is unconstitutional. There [I]IS[/I] an example of one state spurning federal law, albeit rather unsuccessfully to date. I'd expect this crowd to know it.

Oh, I was answering your "Do you know what the supreme court does" question.

Brownie points to someone who can name the state and law which remains pseudo-contradictory to federal law to date, albeit with some tension between state and federal enforcement agencies.

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947349]Brownie points to someone who can name the state and law which remains pseudo-contradictory to federal law to date, albeit with some tension between state and federal enforcement agencies.[/QUOTE] Why not just tell us?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947349]Brownie points to someone who can name the state and law which remains pseudo-contradictory to federal law to date, albeit with some tension between state and federal enforcement agencies.[/QUOTE] California medicinal marijuana?

[QUOTE=Lankist;35947254]That isn't how rights work. You can't just decide who does and does not have them. It's either everyone or no one.[/QUOTE] But they do work like that. We place restrictions for reasons, in the same way that there are restrictions on people owning gun licenses, cannot restrictions be placed on illegal immigrants for owning them? The law doesn't get anywhere by being black and white, everything or nothing. Allotments have to be made as necessary. It's tough and dangerous, but, yeah, it's gotta be done.

[QUOTE=Melkor;35947428]California medicinal marijuana?[/QUOTE] Bingo bango bongo California state authorities recognize licensed medical marijuana growing, selling and possession, but the DEA still considers it a federal crime in all instances. I would suspect that California has not been brought to task because they're afraid of the courts ruling [I]against[/I] the federal portions of the law and thus legalizing medical marijuana nation-wide. So currently they're at a standoff, with the DEA arresting people for federal crimes which are considered no crimes at all in the state.

This thread is so derailed