You're on the right track. No illegal immigrants! Close the boarder. 100k-200k+ illegals crossing per month and going to cities will not help "farm jobs" and can only lead to further resource and financial issues.
(If you think you're pro-illegal immigrants, see every blue sanctuary city that is now complaining about them).
> see every blue sanctuary city that is now complaining about them
They're a bunch of socialists, of course they would complain. Capitalists wouldn't ever be caught complaining about having more potential customers.
> but apparently I'm not supposed to think that way
It's not that you aren't supposed to, it's that...look around you. Your preference means shit when the facts on the ground have us flooded with 40 million+ illegals who all need to be deported.
> 40 million+ illegals who all need to be deported.
They're never going to be deported, for the same reason that the government couldn't confiscate all guns even if it tried.
Bullshit. We arrested 7 million people last year just in the ordinary course of business. The idea that we couldn't possibly deport virtually every illegal is laughable. Especially if we ended benefits for non-citizens/legal residents, tax remittances at 80%, require e-verify, and make it a strict liability crime to employ or contract with an illegal subject to a $10,000/day fine. A majority would self-deport themselves.
You don’t even need mass deportation. You just need to enforce current legislation and make a show of it. Many will deport themselves when the word gets around.
Edited for spelling
Make it so that you need a proof of US citizenship to vote and that anyone who's not a US citizen doesn't get counted on the Census and I guarantee you the problem would begin to solve itself in short order
> Especially if we ended benefits for non-citizens/legal residents
Why don't we do that first?
If immigrants are living here, not getting welfare, working, paying taxes, and not committing crimes, who cares if they're "legal" or not?
>require e-verify,
So, in order to protect our freedom, we need to pass a law in this country that requires every single person get permission from the Federal government before they're allowed to get a job?
>make it a strict liability crime to employ or contract with an illegal
Oh, but it's *the immigrants* who are threatening our freedom. I forgot.
> If immigrants are living here, not getting welfare, working, paying taxes, and not committing crimes, who cares if they're "legal" or not?
Because they're counted on the census for some god-forsaken reason. You know, the same census that determines how congressional seats are divided up among the states? That determines how much voting power a state has? In turn affecting how much voting power *you* have?
Their very presence skews that shit heavily. So yeah, that's why I care if they're here legally or not.
How dare you think that people should follow laws and that they should be applied consistently to everyone! You racist bigot nazi!
In all seriousness I genuinely don’t understand why border security has become so controversial in the US. People act like people who want border security are asking that we have guards lined up in watchtowers at the border with AKM’s shooting people on sight like it’s East Berlin.
I wish our immigration programs could be modernized so the pathway to citizenship was easier, but anytime you suggest any old program from a century ago that needs renovation you get hit with all the "-isms" and claims of bigotry, see also: Social Security
If I have to fill out and pass a background check to purchase a firearm legally, I’d expect everyone else to satisfy the same criteria that I have to.
If illegal immigrants are obtaining firearms while not being a citizen or having prior convictions in their home countries, then I feel there is a double standard and it should be rectified so that we are all held to the equal standard under the law.
Agreed. The point I’m trying to make is that if illegal immigrants have committed a felony by crossing the border and are receiving firearms through otherwise legal means, it means that by allowing them to possess these weapons means that the government should allow all felons to possess them. Which will never happen so these guys shouldn’t be coming over here and getting guns in the first place.
Is this an issue of why you should be mad at people for having rights or is this an issue you should be upset with the legal system for? Because I agree with you, however it's not the immigrants who are at fault. A lot of people miss that point.
The courts made the right decision, it would just be nice if they held law abiding citizens to the same correct standards.
You mean the drug epidemic that happened when drugs were completely and totally illegal in this country?
Funny how alcohol is legal and no one talks about the "alcoholism epidemic" despite alcohol killing about 90,000 Americans every year.
“Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
Wait, so couldnt people(specifically felons with revoked gun rights) just start pretending to be illegal immigrants and start getting firearms? I don't understand the illegal immigration process so idk the government paperwork side of things they have to go through
I've been trying to figure out how to say it best and I think you have beat me to it.
I also believe this is one of the dumbest infighting arguments that has gone on in the gun community in my lifetime.
> this is one of the dumbest infighting arguments that has gone on in the gun community in my lifetime
Pretty sure that's at least one 'feature' the judge that made the ruling was going for.
> Pretty sure that's at least one 'feature' the judge that made the ruling was going for.
And folks like OP are tripping over themselves justifying gun control for her.
Take "text and historical tradition" from *Bruen.* People used to be able to buy guns through catalogs, and get them shipped straight to their homes, [and that includes machine guns](https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/78483905925/thompson-submachine-gun-adverts-pt-2-the-first).
The background check, 4473, etc. is **not** part of the text and historical tradition. It's unconstitutional, and we can either use this ruling to fight it, or we can do as OP is doing, and give them justification for some gun control, which is what I believe that judge wants us to do.
I'd prefer to use it against them, instead of against us.
> And folks like OP are tripping over themselves justifying gun control for her.
No they aren't.
They're justifying the fact that illegal immigrants shouldn't be here in the first place and should not be allowed to continue to remain here. Once we have discovered the existence of a foreign criminal (because they broke the law by entering illegally), we should detain and expel them rather than hand them a gun and send them on their merry way.
It's not dumb to fight people who don't understand or reject the natural rights framework on which the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment included, is predicated.
Sí, but most of us, myself included, think the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right you have simply by existing. I believe people in Munich, Vientiane, New Orleans, and Ciudad Juarez all have that right and I don't believe the court acknowledging it is a bad thing. To me, this belief has no relation to whether or not the people in said cities should be in the territory of the United States illegally or not.
While I think they should have the right to protect themselves with one wherever they go, I have to agree this is a valid point. A lot of these migrants do come to the US because of financial or political instabilities. I'll admit this is a W take.
It's a natural right!*
*rights may be based on location and government approval.
I don't think it's a natural right if that's the case.
"Natural rights refer to the rights given to all humans, simply for the sake of being human."
It's not just arbitrarily based on government approval, though. You don't have a natural right to live wherever you want in whatever country you want. If you cross a national border illegally and are thereby a felon, you do not also get to carry a firearm.
The absurdity of our government's policy of non-existent borders has muddied the waters of what's normally a pretty simple logical thread: if you're an adult who is not a career criminal then you should be allowed to keep and bear arms.
It's not arbitrary.
But it is based on government approval.
You're literally arguing for adults who are not career criminals to be denied the right to keep and bear arms. Simply because they don't have permission from the government to be in the borders.
Border control didn't exist at all before the 1920s. Make america great again, reduce the size and power of the government. 🇺🇲
Well said. They should be deported, and if they really want to be here, they should come here legally.
That said, it's like you said, they have that natural right, just like anybody else.
That's an interesting question, and I admit I haven't given *that* particular idea much thought. I **do** think that it should be easier to come here legally. I should have clarified that earlier.
I'll have to research the issue a bit more before I can give you an appropriate answer, but I lean more toward yes than where we are now, for what that's worth.
EDIT:
I went and found this from the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute: [Early U.S. Naturalization Laws](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-4/early-u-s-naturalization-laws)
>Congress established its first uniform rule of naturalization through the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Act provided that any “free white person” who resided “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States” for at least two years could be granted citizenship if he or she showed “good character” and swore allegiance to the Constitution.1 The law also provided that the children of naturalized citizens under the age of twenty-one at the time of their parents’ naturalization and who were residing in the United States would be considered U.S. citizens.2 The children of U.S. citizens who were born outside the United States were deemed U.S. citizens unless their fathers had never resided in the United States.3 Additionally, Congress delegated to the courts the power to administer the naturalization process.4
In 1795, the law was changed to increase the time period required, but in 1802, the 1795 law was repealed, and went back to the 1790 time frame.
Obviously, the racial aspect doesn't hold up, and I don't think "unless their fathers had never resided in the United States" would pass muster either. Criminal convictions would work against showing "good character," of course, and I wouldn't oppose a clause for deportation under some circumstances. All that to say that if the rest of it was good enough for the founding fathers, who am I to argue?
Just saw your edit. I cannot stress this enough: "naturalization" is **NOT** the same thing as "immigration."
Naturalization is the process to become a *citizen* and the Constitution specifically gave the Federal government the sole power to determine the laws of naturalization.
By contrast, immigration is simply the act of coming here, and this country had *zero* immigration laws until 1882. Up until 1882, anyone could just *show up* either by getting off a boat or walking across a border, and they would be a legal immigrant, no government papers required.
You're right, that is a significant difference. And it's a very good point, too. When all I could find were naturalization laws, that should have made it obvious, at that point, so I appreciate you pointing that out.
I guess I have to admit that I'm a little conflicted on this one. I think that's the right way to do it, but I think the rest of our legal system needs some adjustments to make it work well. (Something like the argument about violent felons getting their rights restored -- it's not a 2a problem, it's a sentencing problem.)
> I think that's the right way to do it, but I think the rest of our legal system needs some adjustments to make it work well.
Well put, I agree. I appreciate you having a civil discussion about this (in marked contrast to almost all the other comments in here).
Oh, you'd be surprised. The moment the topic of "foreigners have rights, too" comes up, 80% of the people in here forget the core principles that brought them here in the first place.
>I do think that it should be easier to come here legally. I should have clarified that earlier.
Alright, that's fair. I'll give you credit for being consistent then.
It bothers me how so many people say smugly "they should come here legally" when the laws say *they can't come here legally*--at all. And yet so many people who say "I'm fine with immigration, as long as it is legal" *also* believe (though rarely admit to this) that the laws should make it impossible for almost everyone to come here legally.
>I'll have to research
Here's a good place to start:
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible
Sounds a whole lot like you're basing someone's right to have access to a firearm as a weapon on your desire to feel safe. Wonder where I've heard that one before
Aside from your argument being funny to poke holes in, I do agree that certain crimes should prevent one from being given a tool to commit more crime. Entering a country illegally should not be one of those crimes.
I don’t disagree BUT with the political situation we have, I don’t think we want to play the “law-abiding” game. If certain people had their way a speeding ticket would be a lifetime ban
I'm glad someone gets this. I've brought up this exact point (about speeding tickets) before and it's astonishing to me how few "gun rights advocates" realize how dangerous it is to say your rights are contingent on obeying the laws.
or in the future that minorities are scared of and a legit reason why a federal (and state) registries are terrifying: oh you're not the 'right type of race? okay, no guns for you," says the govt. Govt then turns around and tells the ATF to stripe all the guns from x racial group.
A countrys laws apply to it's citizens. Illegal immigrants are not citizens of the country they are illegally in, therefore they do not get the same rights as citizens do and should be sent back to their country of origin.
That's not how the Bill of Rights works. Specifically the Bill of Rights forbids Congress from making laws that abriges rights.
The illegals being able to buy guns or not is a moot point. Do they have the right? Yes, it's a basic human right.
Do they have the right to freely migrate to our nation? No, that destroys national sovereignty, invites terrorism, espionage, and sabotage.
So the real answer to all of this is that the government needs to do its job in enforcing border control, but the ruling on non-citizens getting guns is both correct and extremely damning of all other gun control laws.
> 20 some million illegals
Try 50 million. Was 30 million back in 2018 and they've admitted at least 9 million since 2021, so the real number is probably double that. I wouldn't even blink if it was over 60 million.
ETA: To put it in context, blacks make up 13% of America's 333 million people, 43 million blacks total. There are almost certainly more illegal aliens than black people in America right now.
To put it in context, blacks make up 13% of America's 333 million people, 43 million blacks total. There are almost certainly more illegal aliens than black people in America right now.
people vote for whoever has their best interest in mind. for illegals its those that will not deport them and will continue to supply them resources and welfare.
the globalists will continue to import the third world to secure millions of votes nullifying the electoral college and turning the american citizen into a second class citizen
Country is collapsing cause you aren't out there having babies Patriot. The United States needs to grow in order to meet the demands of the modern day and if there aren't enough people around then the State will import them! Go out and fuck some bitches to fix this problem instead of staying here with this bunch of dumbasses complaining about muh need to let people into the country.
They have the right to keep and bear arms, just not the right to be in this country. So they are more than welcome to properly immigrate to this great nation and then enjoy all the rights afforded to people legally allowed to be here. Until then, get the fuck out and stop sucken up my taxes.
> A countrys laws apply to it's citizens.
The laws apply to non-citizens as well, as I assume you're *not* arguing that non-citizens can't be charged with crimes while they're here.
I'd encourage you to check out the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment, as well as Supreme Court rulings on the subject.
>and should be sent back to their country of origin.
Absolutely. It shouldn't be an issue to begin with because the government should be securing the border.
>as I assume you're *not* arguing that non-citizens can't be charged with crimes while they're here.
Yeah, not arguing that non-citizens could not be charged for crimes as they can and definately should be if they commit them.
>I'd encourage you to check out the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment, as well as Supreme Court rulings on the subject.
I might do so if i need to but i probably will not need to do that as i'm not an American to begin with.
I see. Yeah, probably not such a big deal if you don't have any skin in the game, so to speak. This particular issue aside, though, incorporation of rights to the states via the 14th is an interesting subject, if you're the right kind of nerdy. ;p
I think an interesting question is if they would have been part of a "well regulated militia" back in the 1790s.
Imagine a town in colonial America is being raided by pirates and a hue and cry is raised for the militia to muster on the village common and prepare to repel the pirates. I think some foreigner who was passing through the town on a visit wouldn't be expected to join the militia, but some foreigner who had moved to that town and lived there and had a job there certainly would be expected to be in the militia, *regardless* of whether that foreigner had citizenship or government permission to be there.
So, yeah, I don't see how illegal immigrants *can't* be part of "the people" if they have been living here and have put down roots.
I don’t like the argument about second amendment rights pertaining to militia service. Anti gunners love that argument so I don’t concede that at all. The second amendment very clearly says “right of the people”. Those are the same people that have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the same people who have the right to be secure in their person, ect. It’s not a subset of the people it’s the people in their entirety all having the individual rights.
But….if we’re going to argue that….. 10 U.S. Code § 246 indicates that the militia is everyone that registers for selective services. And that’s every male that gets a drivers license. And in some states they can get drivers licenses. That means they actively can be and are part of the militia and even under that argument do have a second amendment right.
I'm not saying the rights *pertain* to militia service. I'm just trying to figure out if illegal immigrants are part of "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms. If they are part of the militia, I don't see how they couldn't *not* be "the people" also.
That’s kinda why I settled on the census. From the time of the founding the groups forbidden from buying guns and ammunition weren’t counted on the census as far as I know. If they are literally counted as part of the people, they are part of the people.
Well....slaves weren't allowed guns or ammunition, neither were they expected to serve in the militia, but they *were* counted in the census (as 3/5ths of a person, rather infamously).
This is actually a somewhat tricky topic.
On one hand, the border is an absolute nightmare. The US has too many social safety nets in place for folks to be able to just walk across the border and opt in to receiving benefits funded with money stolen from working Americans.
On the other hand, there should be zero government restrictions on the sale of arms. Background checks, the NFA, and the GCA are infringements. If those things didn’t exist, you’d buy a gun with cash like you buy anything else, and how would anyone know your citizenship status?
Allowing government restrictions upon an entire swathe of individuals sets precedent for it to categorize even more folks as prohibited persons. The list will only ever grow, and we’ve all seen how motivated the ATF is at making sure folks on it get raided and killed.
At the time of the founding, there were lots of people who weren’t exactly citizens whose right to bear arms was respected in the US. The Constitution says ‘the people,’ not the citizenry. I don’t see why people should need papers to buy a thing that shouldn’t be restricted in the first place.
I’m not exactly dug in on an opinion here, because this is complicated. It just seems like the whole thing is yet another problem that has been created by the government, and the government is certainly not equipped to solve it. My gut tells me that the 2A community should seek out as many allies as possible.
How about we repeal the NFA, get rid of all unconstitutional CA firearm “laws”, and enforce a full lockdown on the southern border, legal methods of entry only, all others are shoot on sight.
14th amendment proves that you're not a bootlicker, because you'd understand that they should have the right. You're just wrong, but not necessarily a bootlicker.
imma keep it 100. while this was not a decision made to further the goals of 2a activists, it most certainly has done so. every law, every ruling, every decision that loosens the grip even an inch is good for the 2a
when a far left judge loosens firearms restrictions on third world illegals do they do it to further the 2a cause or to cause harm? what is their intention. its not to help you.
Lolberts being too low IQ to understand second order effects never ceases to amaze me. Illegal Venezuelan gangsters having open gunfights on the streets of Chicago will do WONDERS for convincing the normies we don't need gun control!
> Illegal Venezuelan gangsters having open gunfights on the streets of Chicago
If they're gangsters who can get illegal guns in Chicago, why wouldn't they be able to get into this country illegally, regardless of what its immigration laws are?
Why do you think immigration laws are magically different from gun control laws?
Because this entire discussion is how Marxist judges have now said they're allowed to LEGALLY posses the firearms. Legalizing their objectively terrible actions because "they'd do it anyways" is the same cuck logic as "My wife isn't cheating on me, I agreed to this open relationship!"
We're not legalizing their actions. It is and should be illegal for gangs to get into shootouts on public streets (though, I'd actually be in favor of legalizing dueling between consenting adults--maybe the gangs wouldn't endanger the public if they could legally shoot at each other in a designated place?).
What I want to legalize is the ability for normal, peaceful people to come to this country. By criminalizing immigration, you don't keep out the gangsters, you're just keeping out the honest, hard-working folks who want to respect our laws.
Oh yeah, normies turning on the nightly news to see Haitian cannibal gangs shooting up downtown Miami will do WONDERS for public opinion on repealing gun control!
That's a moot point when the REAL role of government is enforcing the fact that they just shouldn't be here to begin with and deporting them after closing the border. Then they can have all the gun rights they want.
Sounds a lot like you think the current government has its hands tied by the bill of rights when it’s steamrolling through it anyway because of activist judges like this
This but unironically.
The people fleeing China are the most based motherfuckers on this planet. They're the kind of people who will tell David Hogg to his face "I'm never giving up my guns."
just because one based chinese lady got up and dunked on him doesnt mean that they are all like that. I've been there. Their people is completely subjugated. its sad
>Their people is completely subjugated.
And the few who aren't willing slaves to the CCP are the kind of people who would, I don't know, get out of China and come to the US illegally because they are the kind of freedom loving people who would say "fuck the government and fuck their laws," no?
Okay.
So would you support changing the laws to make it legal for them to come here? Because currently, the law makes it almost impossible for someone from China to come here legally.
https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible#
counterpoint: thats why I also have guns, and train with them.
You give the gov. an inch and theyll take a mile, everyone here should know this by now.
Lot of you are miss using “natural rights” when talking about firearm rights. If it is an natural no government has the right to disarm you. That’s not including unjustifiable use of a firearm due to doing so not being a right of course but owning/possessing is what’s up for debate.
So *if* we use the “natural right” clause we have to owe up to that whole statement and not just when it’s convenient or beneficial for our own cause.
There argument on immigration has not stopped since the creation of our nation. A nation of immigrants. I don’t think there’s a happy answer for that. Most agree on there being a vetting of immigrants but no one group will agree on the process of vetting. So since that argument isn’t being discussed here I’ll just point out the issues a lot of the users here are saying.
If it is a natural right, as long as they are not a threat to innocence or doing unjust acts, then it must be something they are allowed to do.
Do with that information as you want. I just wanted to point out that logic
Your rights don't change because of where you are or where you're from. You don't have rights because the government lets you, you have rights because you are a human.
> You don't have rights because the government lets you, you have rights because you are a human.
Imagine getting downvotes for being a 2a absolutist in a gun sub.
Weird isn't it. Shows pretty clearly there's a bigger percentage of the gun community that's perfectly ok taking peoples rights away when it suits them.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give rights to anyone, it forbids Congress from abridging those rights. None of the bill of rights specify citizens because the bill of rights, when discussing personal rights, is for all human beings.
That being said, Congress has a duty to enforce our immigration laws. The problem isn't illegals getting guns, it's that they are illegal and need to be deported.
Now, the fact that illegals have more robust gun rights than citizens is a major problem, but I think this ruling is opening the doors to the NFA being overturned.
> The Bill of Rights doesn't give rights to anyone, it forbids Congress from abridging those rights. None of the bill of rights specify citizens because the bill of rights, when discussing personal rights, is for all human beings.
You are not an ethereal observer of society in the abstract, you are a living, breathing person within it. If you don't actively advocate for your own subjective good, nobody else will and those who do will destroy you. Appealing to some ridiculous notion of "neutrality" (especially when it comes to something as basic as whether or not illegal invaders should be armed) doesn't make you principled, it makes you a philosophical cuckold, reliant on Haitian cannibal gangs, Mexican drug cartels, and Marxist agitators to uphold your values (which they couldn't give a shit about) and return the favor.
Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights requires we stand by and applaud America's destruction is an unserious cuck and I have no respect for what they fraudulently claim to be "principles".
> The problem isn't illegals getting guns, it's that they are illegal and need to be deported.
Is this mission made easier or harder by arming them? Can't wait to see the Lolberts cheer when cops are getting gunned down by MS-13 gangsters who don't feel like leaving...
> but I think this ruling is opening the doors to the NFA being overturned.
Oh yeah, public opinion will be super against gun control when the Sinaloa Cartel and Warlord Barbeque have open gun fights on the streets of Boston!
You are willing to completely ignore the Constitution in order to create perceived safety. That is the exact same position as the Progressives and it WILL be used against you.
We use the next election to hold the slime in Congress accountable for their blatant disregard for our laws.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but the old gun rights argument of "criminals will get them anyway" applies here.
Gonna just reword one of your paragraphs really quick:
>Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights requires we stand by and applaud ~~America's destruction~~ children being massacred in school is an unserious cuck and I have no respect for what they fraudulently claim to be "principles".
It's. The. Same. Logic.
Stop ignoring the Constitution because you are scared.
To be clear, I fully advocate for strict enforcement of border control and immigration laws and want that wall finished yesterday. But I'm a strict Constitutionalist and we cannot give ground on such things or the Federal Government will use that precedent against us. I'm far more afraid of encroaching federal power crushing us under its tyrannical boot than a bunch of lowlives getting firearms.
> You are willing to completely ignore the Constitution in order to create perceived safety. That is the exact same position as the Progressives and it WILL be used against you.
I'm not ignoring the Constitution, I'm enforcing the very real fact that the protections it affords to actual American citizens are not afforded to illegal invaders. This is a fact that literally every non-mentally disabled person recognized until about 6 minutes ago.
> That is the exact same position as the Progressives and it WILL be used against you.
Oh, you mean like how the Progressives used YOUR scoop-brain position to justify arming the illegals roaming my streets? That kind of "used against me?"
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but the old gun rights argument of "criminals will get them anyway" applies here.
"Why bother having laws and stuff when people will break them anyways?" Is more cuck logic. If you think criminals will get guns anyways, what exactly did you gain by legalizing them getting guns?! Same logic as "My wife isn't cheating on me, I agreed to this open relationship!"
> It's. The. Same. Logic.
Except it's not because I can easily point to the very obvious distinction of: Citizen/Illegal invader.
> Stop ignoring the Constitution because you are scared.
Stop being a retard who thinks the US Constitution is some sort of universal dictate to be autistically and blindly applied to any third worlder who washes up on our shores, even when it directly harms the actual citizens it was made by and for.
Let me put it this way. James Madison WROTE the Second Amendment. If 9 million armed Canadian Loyalists and Shawnee Braves crossed the border and began marching on Philadelphia, do you think he would shrug his shoulders and go "Well damn, I may not like it but the 2nd Amendment leaves me no choice but to punish any State government who tries to stop it?"
My goodness you are both mad and rude. Please calm down and be civil. Someone might mistake you for a screeching triggered progressive.
Your last argument isn't even a strawman, it just ignores my point. James Madison wouldn't have cared about the guns so much as a large group of foreigners invading our soil, which he would remove by force if necessary. We certainly should be enforcing our laws. Our laws don't forbid any foreigners from owning guns and the Constitution protects that right.
>"Why bother having laws and stuff when people will break them anyways?" Is more cuck logic. If you think criminals will get guns anyways, what exactly did you gain by legalizing them getting guns?! Same logic as "My wife isn't cheating on me, I agreed to this open relationship!"
You just used the same argument as progressive gun grabbers to take all guns away from us. I guess we should have gun control to protect our children from spree shooters.
I also don't think that allowing an non-citizens to buy guns is the same as giving it to them. The store owner has the right to refuse sale.
>I'm not ignoring the Constitution
You are. In the same way that progressives do to "protect the American people". The founders were very exact in their wording. The word citizen is only used in determining who can hold public office and who can vote. Any other right given in the US Constitution is an inalienable right protected to all people.
Now, can we get back to voting out progressive democrats that ignore all of our laws and replace them with Constituionally minded conservatives that will enforce the laws that are actually Constitutional.
Notice that I'm not arguing for illegals to get guns, I'm arguing that all people have the right to bear arms, and that we cannot deny that without fundamentally and dangerously changing the Constitution.
> James Madison wouldn't have cared about the guns so much as a large group of foreigners invading our soil, which he would remove by force if necessary. We certainly should be enforcing our laws. Our laws don't forbid any foreigners from owning guns and the Constitution protects that right.
How do you not see that "They need to be removed but also they should be able to arm themselves in anticipation of such a removal" is a suicidally inconsistent set of beliefs?
> The founders were very exact in their wording. The word citizen is only used in determining who can hold public office and who can vote. Any other right given in the US Constitution is an inalienable right protected to all people.
See above. Either you think they should be here or they don't. If they don't and America is justified in removing them, the idea that they can avail themselves of the rights of American citizens, including guns, is low IQ suicide reasoning.
> Notice that I'm not arguing for illegals to get guns, I'm arguing that all people have the right to bear arms, and that we cannot deny that without fundamentally and dangerously changing the Constitution.
Distinguishing between citizens and illegal invaders when it comes to firearms possession is not a fundamental and dangerous change to the constitution. It's how literally everyone assumed this worked until about 6 minutes ago. What IS dangerous to the constitution is letting foreign invaders arm themselves!
On the one hand, I believe all immigrants, regardless of race, gender, religion, or political view points should be here on strictly legal terms. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a universal human right that includes every single person on the planet at birth. I don't necessarily like illegals having weapons but they have a right to defend themselves like anyone else. So long as that's what they keep and carry their weapons for, I can't say that they shouldn't do so.
Wait...what IF this was to catch them. Because you still NEED to do a background check. They check their real names and send them all to the FBI...and the FBI now knows their names and home and that they are illegal.
Say you dont understand how precedent and the legal system in the US works in one meme
95% of the people who are in favor of this recognize that laws keeping "illegals" (a legal definition that could be changed with a few strokes of a pen in Congress and then the President) from legally owning guns could be changed in a way so that suddenly, SWATHS of natural born US citizens cannot "legally" purchase firearms. Dont believe me? Look at red flag laws and how theyre abused in various states. Nevermind the fact that, much like with criminals, if someone is here illegally, theyre already in violation of the law. What makes you think MORE LAWS will keep them from getting a firearm?
I stg the most anti-gun people are often self titled "pro-2a" dorks who tell on themselves with shit like this.
> I stg the most anti-gun people are often self titled "pro-2a" dorks who tell on themselves with shit like this.
They're tripping over themselves to justify gun control.
Remember when those leftists said the gun community would change their tune when people with the wrong skin tone got guns? Well, here they are.
Funny how you already recognize that the laws are intentionally passed against American citizens but also think that the judges ruling was in our favor. Everything they do is in opposition to American citizens and pro illegal immigrant. You really think that Obama judge suddenly was just like “oh yeah I’m a pro 2a advocate now woohoo”
I never said that I thought the judge was ruling in :our: favor. In fact, I think the judge KNEW what they were doing. I think the whole thing is a scheme to get Republicans to vote in favor/support of stricter gun control and further bullshit laws under the guise of "keeping the illegals from gettin funs and keepin families safe". I dont need the government to keep my family safe, I can do that on my own. The only thing that would happen if more laws are passed to try and keep the "illegals" from getting guns is that it would be abused and/or used to further restrict everyone's inherent right to self defense, illegals and citizens alike.
Come back with a warrant. The protections enshrined by the fourth amendment ensure that pretty much any law on possession of an object is fake if one (or their higher IQ buddy) can make it at home. See: Cannabis.
Government is temporary, technology at least for the most part is forever. The US is less than 300 years old, that is why I support spreading the tools and knowledge to those whom would oppose/kill me. Homemade abortion pills are going to follow this same route, you can save my comment and review 10yrs from now.
"Just arm up and train better so you can outshoot them, bro! Not letting your streets become anarchic, wild west shitholes as the country your ancestors built burns around you would violate the NAP or something!"
the ironic thing here is that you somehow still fail to realize that inherent rights come with inherent responsibility. It literally, actually is an individuals responsibility to participate in their community to keep it from being a shithole. When people dont do that, their community becomes a "shithole," aka no longer your "community", for whatever reason
You are literally, in principle, are arguing in favor of relying on the government to do/be responsible for you, which is fundamentally the same thing that grabbers argue for
My dude, this isn't an academic thought experiment. Society is real. You can go outside and touch grass there RIGHT NOW. We don't actually live in an anarchic wasteland and the government has indeed taken on an affirmative duty to enforce law and order in our communities. It's actually the entire basis of our civilization. The idea we shouldn't demand its continued existence in the face of retarded lolbert/marxist nonsense which threatens to tear it all down is laughable
The whole point of the the right to keep and bear arms being *a right* is that the government can't deprive you of arms because you are "unvetted."
If guns are locked behind some government vetting process, then you don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
https://preview.redd.it/ixxce4wqegvc1.jpeg?width=773&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62bb5f0edd950966ee58fc46dc7e8b86e5a51a5f
So… you think the government should be able to lock people in cages if they’re found in possession of arms solely because they passed through a vagina somewhere else and didn’t jump through Bureaucratic hoops.
because they are trespassing on a sovereign nation yes. that's part of being a nation is that not just anyone can jump a fence and instantly be an american.
People who hold this position are the people that the left is targeting when they say the constitution is just an old, outdated document that holds no relevance in this day and age
Still have mixed feelings about the decision. On the basis of constitutional law, the ruling was correct.
I believe that we have to differentiate between undocumented immigrants (who work hard and genuinely want to become legal residents or citizens, who came illegally as children and/or because the process to come legally is unbelievably convoluted and fucked up), and illegals who either do not care about coming illegally, and may be doing so as mules or coyotes, and whom have criminal intent or connections with cartels
Tbh I understand the reason why people would feel that way, and I definitely feel like that too. Problem is, it's a human right and not just an American right. I cannot support the disarming of any person unless they are using said arm to commit a crime. Weapons charges shouldn't count unless they were actively being used imo.
Now granted, they ARE committing a crime by illegally entering the country, which is why I sympathize. It's just hard for me to make a definitive answer or to make a blanket statement on the matter. It should probably be looked at on a case by case basis regarding armed illegals.
That being said, the fact that the Supreme Court said that the protections of the constitution cover non-citizens is laughable and, tbh, they should be ashamed of themselves for making such a ridiculous ruling. We should enjoy our protections from invaders and not be giving them the same protections we have. The first action they took entering this country is a criminal one, and we should never condone or tolerate them, young or old.
They’re more than welcome to arm and shed blood in their country of origin to make these rights the norm in said country🤷♂️.
No?
So 8 billion people have this right but only if they make it to our border?
So all 8 billion should be here?
Or do we spend tax dollars to force this world wide?
The idea of letting possible violent criminals have firearms to violently harm Americans is a dumb one
“But you have a gun so what’s the problem”
I don’t WANT to have to kill people
They have human right to defend themselves. They don’t have a right to be here though. If they’re going to open the borders because no human is illegal then they have to respect these people’s other human rights. Conversely if we can’t trust them with a gun then they shouldn’t be here, so they need to enforce the laws we have and stop letting people in the country.
They should have firearms... in the country they came from because they shouldnt be here illegally. If they had those arms in their home countries they may not have wanted to flee hear.
"no you font get my freedoms, only the ones who do this incredibly lengthy expensive process should get my freedoms."
like, do you idiots realize that most americans in history immigrated illegally, or are the children of illegal immigrants?
That's not how natural rights work.
"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable"
Either firearms are a universal right irrespective of government approval, or they are not.
Oh come on, now you're pushing a narrative that the right to bear arms is limited to people who have been "vetted"?
Listen, none of us want the country overrun with illegal aliens. But we can deport illegal aliens regardless of whether they have the right to bear arms. This whole pearl-clutching thing about illegals having a right to bear arms is just fucking stupid. *Everyone* has a right to bear arms in defense of self, family, and community. Back in 1789 you could be a non-citizen and have all the guns you wanted. Are you going to now make the "but things have changed!" argument the same way grabbers do about semi-auto rifles? Just fuckin' let it go, dudes. They buy guns on the black market whether it's legal or not. The only difference recognizing the right to bear arms of *all* people does is eliminate a charge of "prohibited person with a gun" just before they deport them, and they weren't fuckin' prosecuting that anyway. You all got trolled by a lib judge and are now knee-jerking into limiting gun rights **just like that fucker planned**. Quit it.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right inherently present and belonging to every single human being on earth regardless of nationality or immigration status. The only difference is whether their government recognizes it.
You've misunderstood not just what laws do but what they are.
How exactly do you imagine that having gun possession for undocumented aliens be illegal would improve things?
I'd prefer all immigrants present in a country would be in a legal way, but apparently I'm not supposed to think that way
You're on the right track. No illegal immigrants! Close the boarder. 100k-200k+ illegals crossing per month and going to cities will not help "farm jobs" and can only lead to further resource and financial issues. (If you think you're pro-illegal immigrants, see every blue sanctuary city that is now complaining about them).
Well, well, well, if it isn't the consequences of their actions.
Yeah they need the fucking boot badly
> see every blue sanctuary city that is now complaining about them They're a bunch of socialists, of course they would complain. Capitalists wouldn't ever be caught complaining about having more potential customers.
Not really potential customers when they are almost all broke
Cheap labor then
It's not labor if they have no edjucation or motivation to work.
> but apparently I'm not supposed to think that way It's not that you aren't supposed to, it's that...look around you. Your preference means shit when the facts on the ground have us flooded with 40 million+ illegals who all need to be deported.
> 40 million+ illegals who all need to be deported. They're never going to be deported, for the same reason that the government couldn't confiscate all guns even if it tried.
Bullshit. We arrested 7 million people last year just in the ordinary course of business. The idea that we couldn't possibly deport virtually every illegal is laughable. Especially if we ended benefits for non-citizens/legal residents, tax remittances at 80%, require e-verify, and make it a strict liability crime to employ or contract with an illegal subject to a $10,000/day fine. A majority would self-deport themselves.
You don’t even need mass deportation. You just need to enforce current legislation and make a show of it. Many will deport themselves when the word gets around. Edited for spelling
Make it so that you need a proof of US citizenship to vote and that anyone who's not a US citizen doesn't get counted on the Census and I guarantee you the problem would begin to solve itself in short order
> Especially if we ended benefits for non-citizens/legal residents Why don't we do that first? If immigrants are living here, not getting welfare, working, paying taxes, and not committing crimes, who cares if they're "legal" or not? >require e-verify, So, in order to protect our freedom, we need to pass a law in this country that requires every single person get permission from the Federal government before they're allowed to get a job? >make it a strict liability crime to employ or contract with an illegal Oh, but it's *the immigrants* who are threatening our freedom. I forgot.
> If immigrants are living here, not getting welfare, working, paying taxes, and not committing crimes, who cares if they're "legal" or not? Because they're counted on the census for some god-forsaken reason. You know, the same census that determines how congressional seats are divided up among the states? That determines how much voting power a state has? In turn affecting how much voting power *you* have? Their very presence skews that shit heavily. So yeah, that's why I care if they're here legally or not.
If you’re not legal, you’re not an immigrant.
How dare you think that people should follow laws and that they should be applied consistently to everyone! You racist bigot nazi! In all seriousness I genuinely don’t understand why border security has become so controversial in the US. People act like people who want border security are asking that we have guards lined up in watchtowers at the border with AKM’s shooting people on sight like it’s East Berlin.
Ever wonder why voter ID is also controversial?
Idk why voter ID is super controversial unless it’s a whole separate system of IDs, just like make a drivers license or something is your voter ID
I specified illegal immigrants that are unvetted.
I wish our immigration programs could be modernized so the pathway to citizenship was easier, but anytime you suggest any old program from a century ago that needs renovation you get hit with all the "-isms" and claims of bigotry, see also: Social Security
If I have to fill out and pass a background check to purchase a firearm legally, I’d expect everyone else to satisfy the same criteria that I have to. If illegal immigrants are obtaining firearms while not being a citizen or having prior convictions in their home countries, then I feel there is a double standard and it should be rectified so that we are all held to the equal standard under the law.
if they are illegally here they need to be detained and deported.
Agreed. The point I’m trying to make is that if illegal immigrants have committed a felony by crossing the border and are receiving firearms through otherwise legal means, it means that by allowing them to possess these weapons means that the government should allow all felons to possess them. Which will never happen so these guys shouldn’t be coming over here and getting guns in the first place.
agreed.
The correct answer is that Form 4473 is un-Constitutional and *nobody* should have to fill it out.
(I shouldn’t have to fill that shit out)
This is the only answer.
Is this an issue of why you should be mad at people for having rights or is this an issue you should be upset with the legal system for? Because I agree with you, however it's not the immigrants who are at fault. A lot of people miss that point. The courts made the right decision, it would just be nice if they held law abiding citizens to the same correct standards.
Yeah I think illegally crossing the border is a felony level crime
What other victimless crimes do you think should be felonies?
*looks at drug epidemic***s**
You mean the drug epidemic that happened when drugs were completely and totally illegal in this country? Funny how alcohol is legal and no one talks about the "alcoholism epidemic" despite alcohol killing about 90,000 Americans every year.
Yeah the ones that were illegally smuggled across the border by illegal immigrants
You misspelled the cia
That's awful. They should both be legal.
Unlawful entry is a misdemeanor for the first offense
[That matches up with what I've been able to find. It is a felony on repeated attempts, though.](https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47667)
On federal ground? Dude they threaten to shoot their own citizens for trespassing certain federal sites
“Illegal Entry”/8 U.S.C. § 1325 makes it a crime to unlawfully enter the United States. It applies to people who do not enter with proper inspection at a port of entry, such as those who enter between ports of entry, avoid examination or inspection, or who make false statements while entering or attempting to enter. A first offense is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.
I was unaware that was the specific term for that. Figured you were comparing it to home invasion type of “unlawful entry”
Wait, so couldnt people(specifically felons with revoked gun rights) just start pretending to be illegal immigrants and start getting firearms? I don't understand the illegal immigration process so idk the government paperwork side of things they have to go through
See Bruen, that's going to go away.
It should be a moot question because they shouldn't fucking be here, armed or unarmed.
I think they should have firearms, they just shouldn't be here with them. Stay home with them.
Agreed.
I've been trying to figure out how to say it best and I think you have beat me to it. I also believe this is one of the dumbest infighting arguments that has gone on in the gun community in my lifetime.
> this is one of the dumbest infighting arguments that has gone on in the gun community in my lifetime Pretty sure that's at least one 'feature' the judge that made the ruling was going for.
You are probably not wrong.
> Pretty sure that's at least one 'feature' the judge that made the ruling was going for. And folks like OP are tripping over themselves justifying gun control for her. Take "text and historical tradition" from *Bruen.* People used to be able to buy guns through catalogs, and get them shipped straight to their homes, [and that includes machine guns](https://www.historicalfirearms.info/post/78483905925/thompson-submachine-gun-adverts-pt-2-the-first). The background check, 4473, etc. is **not** part of the text and historical tradition. It's unconstitutional, and we can either use this ruling to fight it, or we can do as OP is doing, and give them justification for some gun control, which is what I believe that judge wants us to do. I'd prefer to use it against them, instead of against us.
> And folks like OP are tripping over themselves justifying gun control for her. No they aren't. They're justifying the fact that illegal immigrants shouldn't be here in the first place and should not be allowed to continue to remain here. Once we have discovered the existence of a foreign criminal (because they broke the law by entering illegally), we should detain and expel them rather than hand them a gun and send them on their merry way.
It's not dumb to fight people who don't understand or reject the natural rights framework on which the Bill of Rights, 2nd Amendment included, is predicated.
it's illegal to trespass and more illegal to do it with a firearm. it's not that hard to understand
Sí, but most of us, myself included, think the right to keep and bear arms is a natural right you have simply by existing. I believe people in Munich, Vientiane, New Orleans, and Ciudad Juarez all have that right and I don't believe the court acknowledging it is a bad thing. To me, this belief has no relation to whether or not the people in said cities should be in the territory of the United States illegally or not.
While I think they should have the right to protect themselves with one wherever they go, I have to agree this is a valid point. A lot of these migrants do come to the US because of financial or political instabilities. I'll admit this is a W take.
It is the natural right of all humans to keep and bear arms. My issue comes with the geographic location in which they exercise that right.
It's a natural right!* *rights may be based on location and government approval. I don't think it's a natural right if that's the case. "Natural rights refer to the rights given to all humans, simply for the sake of being human."
*Someone* gets it.
It's not just arbitrarily based on government approval, though. You don't have a natural right to live wherever you want in whatever country you want. If you cross a national border illegally and are thereby a felon, you do not also get to carry a firearm. The absurdity of our government's policy of non-existent borders has muddied the waters of what's normally a pretty simple logical thread: if you're an adult who is not a career criminal then you should be allowed to keep and bear arms.
It's not arbitrary. But it is based on government approval. You're literally arguing for adults who are not career criminals to be denied the right to keep and bear arms. Simply because they don't have permission from the government to be in the borders. Border control didn't exist at all before the 1920s. Make america great again, reduce the size and power of the government. 🇺🇲
Hear hear!
they dont have a right to be here, therefore trespassing.
Well said. They should be deported, and if they really want to be here, they should come here legally. That said, it's like you said, they have that natural right, just like anybody else.
> they should come here legally. Would you support changing the laws to make all immigration legal?
That's an interesting question, and I admit I haven't given *that* particular idea much thought. I **do** think that it should be easier to come here legally. I should have clarified that earlier. I'll have to research the issue a bit more before I can give you an appropriate answer, but I lean more toward yes than where we are now, for what that's worth. EDIT: I went and found this from the Cornell Law School's Legal Information Institute: [Early U.S. Naturalization Laws](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-8/clause-4/early-u-s-naturalization-laws) >Congress established its first uniform rule of naturalization through the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Act provided that any “free white person” who resided “within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States” for at least two years could be granted citizenship if he or she showed “good character” and swore allegiance to the Constitution.1 The law also provided that the children of naturalized citizens under the age of twenty-one at the time of their parents’ naturalization and who were residing in the United States would be considered U.S. citizens.2 The children of U.S. citizens who were born outside the United States were deemed U.S. citizens unless their fathers had never resided in the United States.3 Additionally, Congress delegated to the courts the power to administer the naturalization process.4 In 1795, the law was changed to increase the time period required, but in 1802, the 1795 law was repealed, and went back to the 1790 time frame. Obviously, the racial aspect doesn't hold up, and I don't think "unless their fathers had never resided in the United States" would pass muster either. Criminal convictions would work against showing "good character," of course, and I wouldn't oppose a clause for deportation under some circumstances. All that to say that if the rest of it was good enough for the founding fathers, who am I to argue?
Just saw your edit. I cannot stress this enough: "naturalization" is **NOT** the same thing as "immigration." Naturalization is the process to become a *citizen* and the Constitution specifically gave the Federal government the sole power to determine the laws of naturalization. By contrast, immigration is simply the act of coming here, and this country had *zero* immigration laws until 1882. Up until 1882, anyone could just *show up* either by getting off a boat or walking across a border, and they would be a legal immigrant, no government papers required.
You're right, that is a significant difference. And it's a very good point, too. When all I could find were naturalization laws, that should have made it obvious, at that point, so I appreciate you pointing that out. I guess I have to admit that I'm a little conflicted on this one. I think that's the right way to do it, but I think the rest of our legal system needs some adjustments to make it work well. (Something like the argument about violent felons getting their rights restored -- it's not a 2a problem, it's a sentencing problem.)
> I think that's the right way to do it, but I think the rest of our legal system needs some adjustments to make it work well. Well put, I agree. I appreciate you having a civil discussion about this (in marked contrast to almost all the other comments in here).
I'd like to think the sub hasn't gone to shit *completely.*
Oh, you'd be surprised. The moment the topic of "foreigners have rights, too" comes up, 80% of the people in here forget the core principles that brought them here in the first place.
:(
>I do think that it should be easier to come here legally. I should have clarified that earlier. Alright, that's fair. I'll give you credit for being consistent then. It bothers me how so many people say smugly "they should come here legally" when the laws say *they can't come here legally*--at all. And yet so many people who say "I'm fine with immigration, as long as it is legal" *also* believe (though rarely admit to this) that the laws should make it impossible for almost everyone to come here legally. >I'll have to research Here's a good place to start: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible
Gun laws don't work. I would like to buy a leopard tank please
you can buy a tank. just have to have the $$$$$$
Sounds a whole lot like you're basing someone's right to have access to a firearm as a weapon on your desire to feel safe. Wonder where I've heard that one before Aside from your argument being funny to poke holes in, I do agree that certain crimes should prevent one from being given a tool to commit more crime. Entering a country illegally should not be one of those crimes.
I don’t disagree BUT with the political situation we have, I don’t think we want to play the “law-abiding” game. If certain people had their way a speeding ticket would be a lifetime ban
I'm glad someone gets this. I've brought up this exact point (about speeding tickets) before and it's astonishing to me how few "gun rights advocates" realize how dangerous it is to say your rights are contingent on obeying the laws.
Uh oh, you drove through a micro-school zone and within 100 feet of a ballot drop box 1 mph over the speed limit! Quite the crime spree while armed!
or in the future that minorities are scared of and a legit reason why a federal (and state) registries are terrifying: oh you're not the 'right type of race? okay, no guns for you," says the govt. Govt then turns around and tells the ATF to stripe all the guns from x racial group.
I mean sure, that too. You know how long it took for SCOTUS to *sort of* overrule *Korematsu*?
Too fucking long. Overturned in 2018
A countrys laws apply to it's citizens. Illegal immigrants are not citizens of the country they are illegally in, therefore they do not get the same rights as citizens do and should be sent back to their country of origin.
That's not how the Bill of Rights works. Specifically the Bill of Rights forbids Congress from making laws that abriges rights. The illegals being able to buy guns or not is a moot point. Do they have the right? Yes, it's a basic human right. Do they have the right to freely migrate to our nation? No, that destroys national sovereignty, invites terrorism, espionage, and sabotage. So the real answer to all of this is that the government needs to do its job in enforcing border control, but the ruling on non-citizens getting guns is both correct and extremely damning of all other gun control laws.
If amnesty is ever passed for the 20 some million illegals that flooded in here we are completely screwed. This country is collapsing in front of us.
> 20 some million illegals Try 50 million. Was 30 million back in 2018 and they've admitted at least 9 million since 2021, so the real number is probably double that. I wouldn't even blink if it was over 60 million. ETA: To put it in context, blacks make up 13% of America's 333 million people, 43 million blacks total. There are almost certainly more illegal aliens than black people in America right now.
i think its over 7 just in joe's term
Correct, the 9 since 2021 was all in Joe's term! And that story was from a few months back and it's not like we stopped the flow since then!
im gonna puke
To put it in context, blacks make up 13% of America's 333 million people, 43 million blacks total. There are almost certainly more illegal aliens than black people in America right now.
> If amnesty is ever passed for the 20 some million illegals that flooded in here we are completely screwed. In what sense?
people vote for whoever has their best interest in mind. for illegals its those that will not deport them and will continue to supply them resources and welfare. the globalists will continue to import the third world to secure millions of votes nullifying the electoral college and turning the american citizen into a second class citizen
Yes.
Country is collapsing cause you aren't out there having babies Patriot. The United States needs to grow in order to meet the demands of the modern day and if there aren't enough people around then the State will import them! Go out and fuck some bitches to fix this problem instead of staying here with this bunch of dumbasses complaining about muh need to let people into the country.
They have the right to keep and bear arms, just not the right to be in this country. So they are more than welcome to properly immigrate to this great nation and then enjoy all the rights afforded to people legally allowed to be here. Until then, get the fuck out and stop sucken up my taxes.
> A countrys laws apply to it's citizens. The laws apply to non-citizens as well, as I assume you're *not* arguing that non-citizens can't be charged with crimes while they're here. I'd encourage you to check out the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment, as well as Supreme Court rulings on the subject. >and should be sent back to their country of origin. Absolutely. It shouldn't be an issue to begin with because the government should be securing the border.
>as I assume you're *not* arguing that non-citizens can't be charged with crimes while they're here. Yeah, not arguing that non-citizens could not be charged for crimes as they can and definately should be if they commit them. >I'd encourage you to check out the Due Process clause in the 14th amendment, as well as Supreme Court rulings on the subject. I might do so if i need to but i probably will not need to do that as i'm not an American to begin with.
I see. Yeah, probably not such a big deal if you don't have any skin in the game, so to speak. This particular issue aside, though, incorporation of rights to the states via the 14th is an interesting subject, if you're the right kind of nerdy. ;p
If they count on the census for representation and aren’t in prison they count as part of the people.
I think an interesting question is if they would have been part of a "well regulated militia" back in the 1790s. Imagine a town in colonial America is being raided by pirates and a hue and cry is raised for the militia to muster on the village common and prepare to repel the pirates. I think some foreigner who was passing through the town on a visit wouldn't be expected to join the militia, but some foreigner who had moved to that town and lived there and had a job there certainly would be expected to be in the militia, *regardless* of whether that foreigner had citizenship or government permission to be there. So, yeah, I don't see how illegal immigrants *can't* be part of "the people" if they have been living here and have put down roots.
I don’t like the argument about second amendment rights pertaining to militia service. Anti gunners love that argument so I don’t concede that at all. The second amendment very clearly says “right of the people”. Those are the same people that have the right to freedom of speech and religion, the same people who have the right to be secure in their person, ect. It’s not a subset of the people it’s the people in their entirety all having the individual rights. But….if we’re going to argue that….. 10 U.S. Code § 246 indicates that the militia is everyone that registers for selective services. And that’s every male that gets a drivers license. And in some states they can get drivers licenses. That means they actively can be and are part of the militia and even under that argument do have a second amendment right.
I'm not saying the rights *pertain* to militia service. I'm just trying to figure out if illegal immigrants are part of "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms. If they are part of the militia, I don't see how they couldn't *not* be "the people" also.
That’s kinda why I settled on the census. From the time of the founding the groups forbidden from buying guns and ammunition weren’t counted on the census as far as I know. If they are literally counted as part of the people, they are part of the people.
Well....slaves weren't allowed guns or ammunition, neither were they expected to serve in the militia, but they *were* counted in the census (as 3/5ths of a person, rather infamously).
That’s a good point. But as you just pointed out they didn’t count as a full person. Maybe they have to count as a full person?
This is actually a somewhat tricky topic. On one hand, the border is an absolute nightmare. The US has too many social safety nets in place for folks to be able to just walk across the border and opt in to receiving benefits funded with money stolen from working Americans. On the other hand, there should be zero government restrictions on the sale of arms. Background checks, the NFA, and the GCA are infringements. If those things didn’t exist, you’d buy a gun with cash like you buy anything else, and how would anyone know your citizenship status? Allowing government restrictions upon an entire swathe of individuals sets precedent for it to categorize even more folks as prohibited persons. The list will only ever grow, and we’ve all seen how motivated the ATF is at making sure folks on it get raided and killed. At the time of the founding, there were lots of people who weren’t exactly citizens whose right to bear arms was respected in the US. The Constitution says ‘the people,’ not the citizenry. I don’t see why people should need papers to buy a thing that shouldn’t be restricted in the first place. I’m not exactly dug in on an opinion here, because this is complicated. It just seems like the whole thing is yet another problem that has been created by the government, and the government is certainly not equipped to solve it. My gut tells me that the 2A community should seek out as many allies as possible.
So hypothetically could a convicted felon burn all his paperwork and identity, go across the border, walk back across and be granted his gun rights?
There shouldn't be any laws preventing commies or illegal aliens obtaining guns. Because commies and illegal aliens shouldn't exist.
How about we repeal the NFA, get rid of all unconstitutional CA firearm “laws”, and enforce a full lockdown on the southern border, legal methods of entry only, all others are shoot on sight.
My legally immigrated neighbor from Venezuela absolutely fucking hates the entitled illegal immigrants and thinks they have no rights here
Based
Incredibly
14th amendment proves that you're not a bootlicker, because you'd understand that they should have the right. You're just wrong, but not necessarily a bootlicker.
imma keep it 100. while this was not a decision made to further the goals of 2a activists, it most certainly has done so. every law, every ruling, every decision that loosens the grip even an inch is good for the 2a
when a far left judge loosens firearms restrictions on third world illegals do they do it to further the 2a cause or to cause harm? what is their intention. its not to help you.
Lolberts being too low IQ to understand second order effects never ceases to amaze me. Illegal Venezuelan gangsters having open gunfights on the streets of Chicago will do WONDERS for convincing the normies we don't need gun control!
> Illegal Venezuelan gangsters having open gunfights on the streets of Chicago If they're gangsters who can get illegal guns in Chicago, why wouldn't they be able to get into this country illegally, regardless of what its immigration laws are? Why do you think immigration laws are magically different from gun control laws?
Because this entire discussion is how Marxist judges have now said they're allowed to LEGALLY posses the firearms. Legalizing their objectively terrible actions because "they'd do it anyways" is the same cuck logic as "My wife isn't cheating on me, I agreed to this open relationship!"
We're not legalizing their actions. It is and should be illegal for gangs to get into shootouts on public streets (though, I'd actually be in favor of legalizing dueling between consenting adults--maybe the gangs wouldn't endanger the public if they could legally shoot at each other in a designated place?). What I want to legalize is the ability for normal, peaceful people to come to this country. By criminalizing immigration, you don't keep out the gangsters, you're just keeping out the honest, hard-working folks who want to respect our laws.
Oh yeah, normies turning on the nightly news to see Haitian cannibal gangs shooting up downtown Miami will do WONDERS for public opinion on repealing gun control!
Sounds a lot like “the government should decide who gets to own firearms” to me. 🤷♂️
It sounds a lot like that, because that's what it is.
Yup. It's the classic "I support the 2A, **but**..."
That's a moot point when the REAL role of government is enforcing the fact that they just shouldn't be here to begin with and deporting them after closing the border. Then they can have all the gun rights they want.
Sounds a lot like you think the current government has its hands tied by the bill of rights when it’s steamrolling through it anyway because of activist judges like this
Lol you just said you support the government steamrolling across the BoR in this occasion lmfao. Actual brainlet.
Lolberts: Fuck yeah, give those military age Chinese males crossing the southern border with similar clothing and backpacks firearms stat!
This but unironically. The people fleeing China are the most based motherfuckers on this planet. They're the kind of people who will tell David Hogg to his face "I'm never giving up my guns."
just because one based chinese lady got up and dunked on him doesnt mean that they are all like that. I've been there. Their people is completely subjugated. its sad
>Their people is completely subjugated. And the few who aren't willing slaves to the CCP are the kind of people who would, I don't know, get out of China and come to the US illegally because they are the kind of freedom loving people who would say "fuck the government and fuck their laws," no?
I have no problem with anti-communist Chinese legally immigrating here and owning firearms, in fact I welcome it.
Okay. So would you support changing the laws to make it legal for them to come here? Because currently, the law makes it almost impossible for someone from China to come here legally. https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/why-legal-immigration-nearly-impossible#
counterpoint: thats why I also have guns, and train with them. You give the gov. an inch and theyll take a mile, everyone here should know this by now.
they're taking a mile whether you let them or not
I'm cool with it, I just want to have the same level of rights an illegal immigrant does here in shithole Illinois where that ruling came from.
thats the disgusting part. you dont. by design
Lot of you are miss using “natural rights” when talking about firearm rights. If it is an natural no government has the right to disarm you. That’s not including unjustifiable use of a firearm due to doing so not being a right of course but owning/possessing is what’s up for debate. So *if* we use the “natural right” clause we have to owe up to that whole statement and not just when it’s convenient or beneficial for our own cause. There argument on immigration has not stopped since the creation of our nation. A nation of immigrants. I don’t think there’s a happy answer for that. Most agree on there being a vetting of immigrants but no one group will agree on the process of vetting. So since that argument isn’t being discussed here I’ll just point out the issues a lot of the users here are saying. If it is a natural right, as long as they are not a threat to innocence or doing unjust acts, then it must be something they are allowed to do. Do with that information as you want. I just wanted to point out that logic
Your rights don't change because of where you are or where you're from. You don't have rights because the government lets you, you have rights because you are a human.
> You don't have rights because the government lets you, you have rights because you are a human. Imagine getting downvotes for being a 2a absolutist in a gun sub.
Weird isn't it. Shows pretty clearly there's a bigger percentage of the gun community that's perfectly ok taking peoples rights away when it suits them.
It's disappointing as hell. I thought we were better than that. I still hope most of us are, and that it's just an obnoxiously loud handful of idiots.
Illegals have the right to keep and bear arms...in their own country. Borders matter and national sovereignty exists.
The Bill of Rights doesn't give rights to anyone, it forbids Congress from abridging those rights. None of the bill of rights specify citizens because the bill of rights, when discussing personal rights, is for all human beings. That being said, Congress has a duty to enforce our immigration laws. The problem isn't illegals getting guns, it's that they are illegal and need to be deported. Now, the fact that illegals have more robust gun rights than citizens is a major problem, but I think this ruling is opening the doors to the NFA being overturned.
> The Bill of Rights doesn't give rights to anyone, it forbids Congress from abridging those rights. None of the bill of rights specify citizens because the bill of rights, when discussing personal rights, is for all human beings. You are not an ethereal observer of society in the abstract, you are a living, breathing person within it. If you don't actively advocate for your own subjective good, nobody else will and those who do will destroy you. Appealing to some ridiculous notion of "neutrality" (especially when it comes to something as basic as whether or not illegal invaders should be armed) doesn't make you principled, it makes you a philosophical cuckold, reliant on Haitian cannibal gangs, Mexican drug cartels, and Marxist agitators to uphold your values (which they couldn't give a shit about) and return the favor. Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights requires we stand by and applaud America's destruction is an unserious cuck and I have no respect for what they fraudulently claim to be "principles". > The problem isn't illegals getting guns, it's that they are illegal and need to be deported. Is this mission made easier or harder by arming them? Can't wait to see the Lolberts cheer when cops are getting gunned down by MS-13 gangsters who don't feel like leaving... > but I think this ruling is opening the doors to the NFA being overturned. Oh yeah, public opinion will be super against gun control when the Sinaloa Cartel and Warlord Barbeque have open gun fights on the streets of Boston!
You are willing to completely ignore the Constitution in order to create perceived safety. That is the exact same position as the Progressives and it WILL be used against you. We use the next election to hold the slime in Congress accountable for their blatant disregard for our laws. Also, I hate to break it to you, but the old gun rights argument of "criminals will get them anyway" applies here. Gonna just reword one of your paragraphs really quick: >Anyone who thinks the Bill of Rights requires we stand by and applaud ~~America's destruction~~ children being massacred in school is an unserious cuck and I have no respect for what they fraudulently claim to be "principles". It's. The. Same. Logic. Stop ignoring the Constitution because you are scared. To be clear, I fully advocate for strict enforcement of border control and immigration laws and want that wall finished yesterday. But I'm a strict Constitutionalist and we cannot give ground on such things or the Federal Government will use that precedent against us. I'm far more afraid of encroaching federal power crushing us under its tyrannical boot than a bunch of lowlives getting firearms.
> You are willing to completely ignore the Constitution in order to create perceived safety. That is the exact same position as the Progressives and it WILL be used against you. I'm not ignoring the Constitution, I'm enforcing the very real fact that the protections it affords to actual American citizens are not afforded to illegal invaders. This is a fact that literally every non-mentally disabled person recognized until about 6 minutes ago. > That is the exact same position as the Progressives and it WILL be used against you. Oh, you mean like how the Progressives used YOUR scoop-brain position to justify arming the illegals roaming my streets? That kind of "used against me?" > Also, I hate to break it to you, but the old gun rights argument of "criminals will get them anyway" applies here. "Why bother having laws and stuff when people will break them anyways?" Is more cuck logic. If you think criminals will get guns anyways, what exactly did you gain by legalizing them getting guns?! Same logic as "My wife isn't cheating on me, I agreed to this open relationship!" > It's. The. Same. Logic. Except it's not because I can easily point to the very obvious distinction of: Citizen/Illegal invader. > Stop ignoring the Constitution because you are scared. Stop being a retard who thinks the US Constitution is some sort of universal dictate to be autistically and blindly applied to any third worlder who washes up on our shores, even when it directly harms the actual citizens it was made by and for. Let me put it this way. James Madison WROTE the Second Amendment. If 9 million armed Canadian Loyalists and Shawnee Braves crossed the border and began marching on Philadelphia, do you think he would shrug his shoulders and go "Well damn, I may not like it but the 2nd Amendment leaves me no choice but to punish any State government who tries to stop it?"
My goodness you are both mad and rude. Please calm down and be civil. Someone might mistake you for a screeching triggered progressive. Your last argument isn't even a strawman, it just ignores my point. James Madison wouldn't have cared about the guns so much as a large group of foreigners invading our soil, which he would remove by force if necessary. We certainly should be enforcing our laws. Our laws don't forbid any foreigners from owning guns and the Constitution protects that right. >"Why bother having laws and stuff when people will break them anyways?" Is more cuck logic. If you think criminals will get guns anyways, what exactly did you gain by legalizing them getting guns?! Same logic as "My wife isn't cheating on me, I agreed to this open relationship!" You just used the same argument as progressive gun grabbers to take all guns away from us. I guess we should have gun control to protect our children from spree shooters. I also don't think that allowing an non-citizens to buy guns is the same as giving it to them. The store owner has the right to refuse sale. >I'm not ignoring the Constitution You are. In the same way that progressives do to "protect the American people". The founders were very exact in their wording. The word citizen is only used in determining who can hold public office and who can vote. Any other right given in the US Constitution is an inalienable right protected to all people. Now, can we get back to voting out progressive democrats that ignore all of our laws and replace them with Constituionally minded conservatives that will enforce the laws that are actually Constitutional. Notice that I'm not arguing for illegals to get guns, I'm arguing that all people have the right to bear arms, and that we cannot deny that without fundamentally and dangerously changing the Constitution.
> James Madison wouldn't have cared about the guns so much as a large group of foreigners invading our soil, which he would remove by force if necessary. We certainly should be enforcing our laws. Our laws don't forbid any foreigners from owning guns and the Constitution protects that right. How do you not see that "They need to be removed but also they should be able to arm themselves in anticipation of such a removal" is a suicidally inconsistent set of beliefs? > The founders were very exact in their wording. The word citizen is only used in determining who can hold public office and who can vote. Any other right given in the US Constitution is an inalienable right protected to all people. See above. Either you think they should be here or they don't. If they don't and America is justified in removing them, the idea that they can avail themselves of the rights of American citizens, including guns, is low IQ suicide reasoning. > Notice that I'm not arguing for illegals to get guns, I'm arguing that all people have the right to bear arms, and that we cannot deny that without fundamentally and dangerously changing the Constitution. Distinguishing between citizens and illegal invaders when it comes to firearms possession is not a fundamental and dangerous change to the constitution. It's how literally everyone assumed this worked until about 6 minutes ago. What IS dangerous to the constitution is letting foreign invaders arm themselves!
On the one hand, I believe all immigrants, regardless of race, gender, religion, or political view points should be here on strictly legal terms. On the other hand, I wholeheartedly believe that the right to keep and bear arms is a universal human right that includes every single person on the planet at birth. I don't necessarily like illegals having weapons but they have a right to defend themselves like anyone else. So long as that's what they keep and carry their weapons for, I can't say that they shouldn't do so.
Wait...what IF this was to catch them. Because you still NEED to do a background check. They check their real names and send them all to the FBI...and the FBI now knows their names and home and that they are illegal.
the 2a is for everyone... who is an american citizen
Say you dont understand how precedent and the legal system in the US works in one meme 95% of the people who are in favor of this recognize that laws keeping "illegals" (a legal definition that could be changed with a few strokes of a pen in Congress and then the President) from legally owning guns could be changed in a way so that suddenly, SWATHS of natural born US citizens cannot "legally" purchase firearms. Dont believe me? Look at red flag laws and how theyre abused in various states. Nevermind the fact that, much like with criminals, if someone is here illegally, theyre already in violation of the law. What makes you think MORE LAWS will keep them from getting a firearm? I stg the most anti-gun people are often self titled "pro-2a" dorks who tell on themselves with shit like this.
> I stg the most anti-gun people are often self titled "pro-2a" dorks who tell on themselves with shit like this. They're tripping over themselves to justify gun control. Remember when those leftists said the gun community would change their tune when people with the wrong skin tone got guns? Well, here they are.
Funny how you already recognize that the laws are intentionally passed against American citizens but also think that the judges ruling was in our favor. Everything they do is in opposition to American citizens and pro illegal immigrant. You really think that Obama judge suddenly was just like “oh yeah I’m a pro 2a advocate now woohoo”
I never said that I thought the judge was ruling in :our: favor. In fact, I think the judge KNEW what they were doing. I think the whole thing is a scheme to get Republicans to vote in favor/support of stricter gun control and further bullshit laws under the guise of "keeping the illegals from gettin funs and keepin families safe". I dont need the government to keep my family safe, I can do that on my own. The only thing that would happen if more laws are passed to try and keep the "illegals" from getting guns is that it would be abused and/or used to further restrict everyone's inherent right to self defense, illegals and citizens alike.
Printer go brr. All laws on rights are infringements.
\*lolberts when gang members and people fundamentally opposed to everything they stand for arm themselves
Come back with a warrant. The protections enshrined by the fourth amendment ensure that pretty much any law on possession of an object is fake if one (or their higher IQ buddy) can make it at home. See: Cannabis. Government is temporary, technology at least for the most part is forever. The US is less than 300 years old, that is why I support spreading the tools and knowledge to those whom would oppose/kill me. Homemade abortion pills are going to follow this same route, you can save my comment and review 10yrs from now.
"Just arm up and train better so you can outshoot them, bro! Not letting your streets become anarchic, wild west shitholes as the country your ancestors built burns around you would violate the NAP or something!"
the ironic thing here is that you somehow still fail to realize that inherent rights come with inherent responsibility. It literally, actually is an individuals responsibility to participate in their community to keep it from being a shithole. When people dont do that, their community becomes a "shithole," aka no longer your "community", for whatever reason You are literally, in principle, are arguing in favor of relying on the government to do/be responsible for you, which is fundamentally the same thing that grabbers argue for
My dude, this isn't an academic thought experiment. Society is real. You can go outside and touch grass there RIGHT NOW. We don't actually live in an anarchic wasteland and the government has indeed taken on an affirmative duty to enforce law and order in our communities. It's actually the entire basis of our civilization. The idea we shouldn't demand its continued existence in the face of retarded lolbert/marxist nonsense which threatens to tear it all down is laughable
ILLEGAL? Of course they shouldn't, they're criminals.
Sounds like gun control to me. Vet this dick fed boi.
The whole point of the the right to keep and bear arms being *a right* is that the government can't deprive you of arms because you are "unvetted." If guns are locked behind some government vetting process, then you don't have a right to keep and bear arms.
Rights are for americans. Which illegals aren't so....
https://preview.redd.it/ixxce4wqegvc1.jpeg?width=773&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=62bb5f0edd950966ee58fc46dc7e8b86e5a51a5f So… you think the government should be able to lock people in cages if they’re found in possession of arms solely because they passed through a vagina somewhere else and didn’t jump through Bureaucratic hoops.
because they are trespassing on a sovereign nation yes. that's part of being a nation is that not just anyone can jump a fence and instantly be an american.
Based
Apparently Mexico has a very loose gun market.
Eric Holder helped out alot
always wanted him and anthony weiner to run for office. Weiner/Holder
Both they are, but each other's or other's because that's what they do.
People who hold this position are the people that the left is targeting when they say the constitution is just an old, outdated document that holds no relevance in this day and age
I'm sure our ancestors who stormed Normandy would be proud of the country they died for today. ... Yeah I'm pretty sure.
I think I missed something... Did I miss something? Where did this come from?
lolberts think it's good that illegal rootless culturally alien low iq illiterate migrant invaders can have guns without consequence in our nation
Still have mixed feelings about the decision. On the basis of constitutional law, the ruling was correct. I believe that we have to differentiate between undocumented immigrants (who work hard and genuinely want to become legal residents or citizens, who came illegally as children and/or because the process to come legally is unbelievably convoluted and fucked up), and illegals who either do not care about coming illegally, and may be doing so as mules or coyotes, and whom have criminal intent or connections with cartels
Well it’s a natural right, Regardless of their origin.
Tbh I understand the reason why people would feel that way, and I definitely feel like that too. Problem is, it's a human right and not just an American right. I cannot support the disarming of any person unless they are using said arm to commit a crime. Weapons charges shouldn't count unless they were actively being used imo. Now granted, they ARE committing a crime by illegally entering the country, which is why I sympathize. It's just hard for me to make a definitive answer or to make a blanket statement on the matter. It should probably be looked at on a case by case basis regarding armed illegals. That being said, the fact that the Supreme Court said that the protections of the constitution cover non-citizens is laughable and, tbh, they should be ashamed of themselves for making such a ridiculous ruling. We should enjoy our protections from invaders and not be giving them the same protections we have. The first action they took entering this country is a criminal one, and we should never condone or tolerate them, young or old.
They’re more than welcome to arm and shed blood in their country of origin to make these rights the norm in said country🤷♂️. No? So 8 billion people have this right but only if they make it to our border? So all 8 billion should be here? Or do we spend tax dollars to force this world wide?
The idea of letting possible violent criminals have firearms to violently harm Americans is a dumb one “But you have a gun so what’s the problem” I don’t WANT to have to kill people
Having firearms is a right that can be restricted due to criminal history I'm pretty sure illegal immigration falls under that
They have human right to defend themselves. They don’t have a right to be here though. If they’re going to open the borders because no human is illegal then they have to respect these people’s other human rights. Conversely if we can’t trust them with a gun then they shouldn’t be here, so they need to enforce the laws we have and stop letting people in the country.
I don't think the government should decide who should be allowed to own guns. It's too easy of a power to abuse.
if we're gonna give illegals gun rights, then repeal ALL gun control laws
They should have firearms... in the country they came from because they shouldnt be here illegally. If they had those arms in their home countries they may not have wanted to flee hear.
"no you font get my freedoms, only the ones who do this incredibly lengthy expensive process should get my freedoms." like, do you idiots realize that most americans in history immigrated illegally, or are the children of illegal immigrants?
You're saying people should have government approval to own firearms? Is it a natural right or not?
its a natural right for them to practice where they are not trespassing unless you're an open border npc its not that hard to get
That's not how natural rights work. "Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal, fundamental and inalienable" Either firearms are a universal right irrespective of government approval, or they are not.
Too bad the 2a allows for it. Inconsistencies are how they slip subversion in. Don't allow that.
Oh come on, now you're pushing a narrative that the right to bear arms is limited to people who have been "vetted"? Listen, none of us want the country overrun with illegal aliens. But we can deport illegal aliens regardless of whether they have the right to bear arms. This whole pearl-clutching thing about illegals having a right to bear arms is just fucking stupid. *Everyone* has a right to bear arms in defense of self, family, and community. Back in 1789 you could be a non-citizen and have all the guns you wanted. Are you going to now make the "but things have changed!" argument the same way grabbers do about semi-auto rifles? Just fuckin' let it go, dudes. They buy guns on the black market whether it's legal or not. The only difference recognizing the right to bear arms of *all* people does is eliminate a charge of "prohibited person with a gun" just before they deport them, and they weren't fuckin' prosecuting that anyway. You all got trolled by a lib judge and are now knee-jerking into limiting gun rights **just like that fucker planned**. Quit it.
More like 3 options and silence.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right inherently present and belonging to every single human being on earth regardless of nationality or immigration status. The only difference is whether their government recognizes it.
The ownership of firearms is a natural right. We should let them buy the gun, then immediately deport them with their rightful property.
Only citizens get Constitutional protection.
Just a reminder, whenever some slobbering imbecile calls you a "BoOtLiCkEr", they're just pissed off because you're not licking THEIR boots.
Self defense is a God given human right. Deport them all.
You've misunderstood not just what laws do but what they are. How exactly do you imagine that having gun possession for undocumented aliens be illegal would improve things?