Poll: Gun Owners More Likely to Find Fundamental Freedoms Essential Than Non-Owners

Ok sure let's go down the rabbit hole.

People do have those unalienable rights, but that doesn't mean that others will respect and observe them.

In other words, while you may have the unalienable right to life, I may choose to ignore that right and try to end it. If you are as capable as me, you may or may not be successful. If you are far less capable than me, I will win, and your "right" has been trampled on.

This is, of course, why people form like cultures and is the purpose of society and government.....ostensibly it is to protect all members of that society. Of course society and government itself is often the aggressor, but that's a side issue. Therefore, the primary purpose of a society or government is the protection of it's members, otherwise, it really has no reason to exist, and it's an "every man for himself" scenario where your rights are only as good as your ability to protect them yourself.

Naturally, for a society to be what it is, it must be inclusive. At this point in human development, there is not one governing all-protective society that is responsible for all members on planet Earth. So, every society and form of government on Earth has borders and limitations. You are either a member of that group, or you are not.

While borders are arbitrary, the rules, regulations, systems, culture, laws and responsibilities are not arbitrary. The group you belong to is the group that is both responsible to you, and for you.

This is true at the micro as well as the macro. You are responsible for the people in your family, and those borders are your house. The US government is responsible for those who belong to it, as well as to those it allows in it's borders.

Going into someone's country uninvited is no different than entering someone's house uninvited. Both of these things violate the boundaries and responsibilities of those living in those areas.

What is the functional difference between someone illegally entering your home, then proceeding to use your resources inside that home, and potentially coming into conflict with the legal residents than it is to have someone illegally enter your country and do the same thing?

By entering into my home, or my country, your are infringing on MY rights, which of course is the litmus test we use for ALL rights, unalienable or no.

The government is responsible for removing that threat in the same way I am responsible for removing a threat that enters my house.

Now be aware that these are the cases where people are infringing on our rights. There are, of course, cases where this is not true. If I invite you into my house, or the government invites you into our country, you have your unalienable rights fully recognized because you have not infringed on MY rights.

If you illegally enter my home I'm certainly not going to recognize your unalienable right to examine my firearms, no more than we should recognize someone who enters illegally the recognition of their 2A rights.

 

A post deliberately ignored by DoctorWho. I wonder why.

 

Thank you for digging your own hole and proving to Dr.Who the truthfulness of my presupposition.

You keep making this false, phony and baseless allegation that people are uninvited. Your side absolutely and positively cannot deal in facts. A lot of Americans invite the foreigners here. Maybe "you" don't, but you're not God and you do not have the authority to make decisions for others - even when you're in the majority! If people have unalienable Rights and they find a willing employer, landlord, etc. then they should be able to engage in lawful pursuits.

Since you made this a "house" analogy, I can work with that. You want other people to pay half the rent and utilities while telling them that they have no right to invite guests unless "you" okay it, but have no more say than anyone else. Son, in America if you're married and you own the house if your wife wants to invite her sister over and you despise the skank, you are S.O.L. Yet you want to make this house analogy, but when we apply that you're still wrong.

OTOH, if California wants to have sanctuary cities and I don't, then if my federal legislators vote to cut off those federal funds the government of California uses for assistance to non-citizens, then I'm all for it. And if California can keep them up, then they are welcome to invite whomever they want. It still won't mean those people can become citizens OR in your house analogy, the foreigner will not become a sublessee, just a guest.

Denying to employers their equal protection of the laws by enforcing silly quotas was obviously unfair. Trump raised the quota numbers. It does not guarantee citizenship. But, it enforces my presupposition.

 

One other thing I'd like to point out.

The argument you make here is really no different than your average gun banner.

The law is that we have the right to keep and bear arms. They don't like it, so they ignore it, and seek to take it away from us.

It is not a valid argument to claim that people in this country have the right to ignore immigration law because they don't like it. People do not have the right to not enforce immigration law, since non-US citizens do NOT have a right to be here.

Those who enter the country illegally, as well as those who protect them, are breaking the law and infringing on the rights of the rest of us.

They do have the right to life and liberty, but they have absolutely no right to enter the US without doing so legally.

 

US citizens do not have the right, or the legal authority, to ignore immigration law. That is a function of Congress, as per the Constitution, and the POTUS can limit who enters based on Congressional law.

You, nor anyone else, has that authority. You do have the right and the authority to vote for a representative to change the law, and you have the ability to push for an Amendment limiting or expanding Congress' authority. Otherwise you have nothing.

California has no authority over immigration laws, so it is irrelevant what California wants. ICE will go in and remove them regardless of their desires, and is already doing so.

Oh and if some skank relative is in my house and infringes on my rights, she'll be leaving in cop car.

 

In a nutshell: there is no unalienable right to live wherever you want, or to ignore laws you don't like.

 

First off, let us be honest and accurate here. Congress has no authority over immigration. The word isn't even in the Constitution. Congress has authority over naturalization, so they have authority over foreigners who are coming here to seek citizenship.

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806

The United States Supreme Court empowered Congress to have "plenary powers" over immigration in 1875. The problem is, the United States Supreme Court is not empowered by our Constitution to give any powers to anyone or any branch of government. They lack the authority. The United States Supreme Court legislated from the bench and IF you were concerned about the fundamental freedoms of this nation, you would be horrified by this power grab.

As a citizen, I have many, many, many nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress. SOME of them include, but are not limited to:

* Disobeying unconstitutional laws

* Passive Resistance - Refusing to do things not constitutionally required of me (refusing to answer personal questions on a Census inquiry is an example)

* Civil Disobedience

* Removing yourself from the jurisdiction of government

I have many more and they include the three votes that I have as a Citizen in our Republic. But, just to keep reminding vman12 how wrong he is, this is how the United States Supreme Court opined on vman12's proposition:

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.


No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

 

The courts didn't grant them anything, it merely recognized and affirmed their Constitutional powers. The purpose of government, after all, is to manage a society. Every society has borders. Every society has immigration laws.

For example, entering into Mexico illegally is a felony in their country, and unless your parents are Mexican, you can never be a Mexican citizen.

Our immigration laws are far more lenient than any other country on Earth, yet people still want to ignore them because they feel they have a right to live here. Which, of course, they do not.

As I pointed out earlier, people do not have an unalienable right to live wherever they want.

Your stance here is as unconstitutional as someone trying to pass gun control laws. Pity your close proximity to the subject blinds you here. I suspect you have highly personal reasons why you feel the way you do, since you don't see it.

Congress says who can, and who cannot enter this country. THAT is Constitutional. If you go against that, then you are guilty of not following the Constitution.

What you're doing is trying to confuse yourself intentionally, by trying to suggest to yourself that you're actually justified in disobeying an Unconstitutional immigration law.

1. Our immigration laws are Constitutional.
2. Those who do not observe immigration laws are not observing the Constitutional powers of Congress

According to your argument, anyone, at any time, can enter our country. Is that your stance?

 

Also, since you're trying to question the very foundation of Constitutional legality of immigration control, we only need turn to the people who wrote the Constitution.

James Madison : “It is no doubt very desirable that we should hold out as many inducements as possible for the worthy part of mankind to come and settle amongst us, and throw their fortunes into a common lot with ours. But why is this desirable?” Not merely to swell the catalogue of people. No, sir, it is to increase the wealth and strength of the community; and those who acquire the rights of citizenship, without adding to the strength or wealth of the community are not the people we are in want of.”

Clearly, in this case, immigration is a tool to be used to BENEFIT the citizens of our country, not merely to increase our population. He clearly argued here against such things as illegal immigration and unchecked poverty entering.

Alexander Hamilton: “The safety of a republic depends essentially on the energy of a common national sentiment; on a uniformity of principles and habits; on the exemption of the citizens from foreign bias and prejudice; and on that love of country which will almost invariably be found to be closely connected with birth, education, and family.”

“The United States have already felt the evils of incorporating a large number of foreigners into their national mass; by promoting in different classes different predilections in favor of particular foreign nations, and antipathies against others, it has served very much to divide the community and to distract our councils. It has been often likely to compromise the interests of our own country in favor of another.”

“The permanent effect of such a policy will be, that in times of great public danger there will be always a numerous body of men, of whom there may be just grounds of distrust; the suspicion alone will weaken the strength of the nation, but their force may be actually employed in assisting an invader.”

"The survival of the American republic depends upon “the preservation of a national spirit and a national character.”

“To admit foreigners indiscriminately to the rights of citizens the moment they put foot in our country would be nothing less than to admit the Grecian horse into the citadel of our liberty and sovereignty.”

Clearly, unchecked immigration by people who have no desire to benefit, only benefit from, entering our country is something that Hamilton also warned us of.

All one needs to do is visit California to see how the Mexican community feels. They are Mexican first, and American only in how much they can get in benefits.

 

There is no point arguing with you as even when you've been proven wrong, you cannot accept it.

"I hold the right of expatriation to be inherent in every man by the laws of nature, and incapable of being rightfully taken from him even by the united will of every other person in the nation. If the laws have provided no particular mode by which the right of expatriation may be exercised, the individual may do it by any effectual and unequivocal act or declaration." --Thomas Jefferson to Albert Gallatin, 1806

 

NONE of the above proves anything.

A lot of people disagreed with Thomas Jefferson; however, in the end, they signed their names to the Declaration of Independence and Jefferson, himself said of that document:

"The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our rights, and of the rights of man."

The Declaration of Independence is at the head of the United States Code and has been used as precedent in over a hundred cases all the way up to, and including, the United States Supreme Court. Of this document, the United States Supreme Court said:

"The first official action of this nation declared the foundation of government in these words: "We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "While such declaration of principles may not have the force of organic law, or be made the basis of judicial decision as to the limits of right and duty, and while in all cases reference must be had to the organic law of the nation for such limits, yet the latter is but the body and the letter of which the former is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Constitution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence. No duty rests more imperatively upon the courts than the enforcement of those constitutional provisions intended to secure that equality of rights which is the foundation of free government." Cotting v. Godard, 183 U.S. 79 (1901)

 

It isn't your choice. How hard is that to understand? The government and the government alone decides what your rights are.

 

You haven't proven anything wrong. You're getting emotional, which means YOU'RE the one losing the argument.

Name another country that recognizes this imaginary unalienable right to live wherever you want on Earth. That's right. It doesn't exist.

You can't up and move to Mexico, or Greece, or Australia, or anywhere without abiding by their immigration laws. You can't even leave THIS country without the Federal Government approving it via a passport.

You didn't prove anything about SCOTUS.

Congress power to regulate immigration was most recently upheld in 2010 in Arizona vs United States:

Kennedy's opinion embraced an expansive view of the United States Government's authority to regulate immigration and aliens, describing it as "broad" and "undoubted." That authority derived from the legislative power of Congress to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization," enumerated in the Constitution,[40] as well as the long-standing interpretation of federal sovereignty in areas pertaining to the control and conduct of relations with foreign nations.[41] In this context, federal discretion as to whether or how immigration laws are enforced is an important component of Congressional authority. At the same time, Justice Kennedy's opinion acknowledged the serious concerns experienced by Arizona citizens and officials in dealing with illegal immigration, noting that signs along highways south of Phoenix, Arizona discourage travel by the public due to dangerous smuggling activities.

Since you persist, just answer these two questions:

1. Where in the Constitution is an unalienable right to immigrate to the US recognized?
2. Is your stance that anyone can enter our country, any time they wish?

Your entire argument is based on the unalienable right to live wherever you want, but no entity on the earth recognizes such a right exists.

 

Except where they're specifically forbidden to do so, such as in our Constitution, explicitly.

They're implicitly denied that function if they weren't specifically granted it as well.

 

Me: According to your argument, anyone, at any time, can enter our country. Is that your stance?

Do you realize that you just admitted there is no unalienable right to enter the US?

 

I told you the truth and now, after 37 posts I have pretty much proven my point. vman12 lacks enough information, so, rather to examine the facts, he falls back on trying to prove that all men do not have unalienable Rights.

Early in American history, our forefathers attempted to preserve the homogeneous culture we had developed by only allowing whites to be citizens. There was no attempt to exclude people from coming here and doing business. People had an unalienable Right to do so. So, we limited citizenship to whites. That, essentially did what vman12 wants America to do today... except I'd bet he would counter that he isn't opposed to immigration - provided it's "legal" and all.

AFTER the illegal ratification of the 14th Amendment, anyone could become a citizen. AND, the 14th Amendment guarantees "all persons" the Right to Liberty and the equal protection of the laws. Undeniably, if one person's Right to Liberty is at stake, then everybody's Right to Liberty is at stake. It's that simple. That destroyed America's homogeneity and gave rise to SOME of the culture issues we face. The liberals compounded this issue by then forcing non-whites, non-Christians, and even sexual deviants into the PRIVATE SECTOR.

So, now you don't really own your property; don't own the jobs your business creates; don't have any unalienable Rights. America is run by multi-national corporations and the people who try to claim they are on the right are as far left as anyone can get.

Multiculturalism is a social experiment that failed. But, you cannot fix the problem by denying to people the unalienable Rights to which they are due. Quite the converse is true. Give the American people their Rights back and then incentivize employers to hire Americans. It would all work out... but you absolutely cannot attack unalienable Rights with lies and misconceptions expecting that you can save your own Rights. It will not happen.

 

They don't have the unalienable right to enter the United States, even you admitted that.

No one has the unalienable right to enter any other country, either.

 

I did not admit to nothing. WTH is wrong with you? I mean your case is weak, but now you're grasping at straws. Are you that desperate? I don't say squat pal. But, know this:

IF people did not have unalienable Rights, then you would shoot these people you disagree with since you are claiming they do not have Rights. You have this idiotic and childish concept of unalienable Rights. Look dude. You really need to grow up. I have unalienable rights; you have unalienable Rights. But, your Rights end where my nose begins and vice versa.

I have a Right to the Freedom of Speech, but I do not have the Right to yell fire in a crowded theater. Doing so would jeopardize the Rights of others. So, somebody's Rights have to prevail. Whose? The entire purpose of government is to insure those Rights remain unalienable.

Government could claim a vested interest in how many people that can come in based upon whether or not they can effectively exercise their Rights without jeopardizing the Rights of others. Put another way: I once did the legal research on a Supreme Court case involving the First Amendment - that was won, BTW. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that an ordinance allowing the local government to set varying fees for different events violated the First Amendment due to the lack of "narrowly drawn, reasonable, and definite standards" governing the amount of the fee.

The local government was trying to use the law to prohibit the free exercise of an unalienable Right. While they could regulate it, they could not use it to deny the Right - an exercise you've been faithfully committed to for how many posts now?

Today, when a person has an employer willing to hire them and a landlord willing to rent to them, there is no justifiable reason not to allow the people to engage in lawful activities. NONE WHATSOEVER. Citizenship is a privilege and don't count toward that end, but really dude. You should start acting like you are putting effort into this rather than acting so childish with your silly insults.

 

VMAN 12 IS LYING AND HE KNOWS THAT I HAVE NEVER ADMITTED TO ANY SUCH CRAP. HE IS SUPPORTING A NEO-NAZI INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS AND USING THEIR TALKING POINTS. THAT IS OKAY BUT I AM CALLING HIM OUT HERE AND NOW FOR KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY AND DELIBERATELY LYING ABOUT WHAT I'VE SAID. IT IS COWARDLY, DISHONEST, DISHONORABLE AND INSULTING.

 

And you're boring.

 

So, leave the thread. I'm merely proving a point... and thank you for weighing in and helping prove that Dr.Who was wrong.

 

Post # 35.

Post #40.

I asked you if anyone could enter our country any time they wanted, you said no, then proceeded to call me some more names.

I'll ask you again:

Where in the Constitution is the unalienable right to immigrate to the US.

You won't find it because it doesn't exist.

Nor does it exist in any other country.

 

WE ARE NOT SOME OTHER COUNTRY. Your answer is in the Declaration of Independence, the practices America had prior to Dred Scott v Sanford era and the 14th Amendment.

You cannot show us where immigration is prohibited in the Constitution because Congress has no authority in immigration and did not have until 1875 when the Supreme Court ILLEGALLY bestowed a power on Congress that the Supreme Court had no authority to do.

Either you have unalienable Rights or you don't. We aren't going to agree on this, so why push me? Don't you have enough confidence to allow other posters to read the posts and make up their own minds OR do you think everybody else is and idiot an must have your input to make up their own minds? Are you really that insecure?

 

MAN 12 IS LYING AND HE KNOWS THAT I HAVE NEVER ADMITTED TO ANY SUCH CRAP. HE IS SUPPORTING A NEO-NAZI INTERPRETATION OF THE LAWS AND USING THEIR TALKING POINTS. THAT IS OKAY BUT I AM CALLING HIM OUT HERE AND NOW FOR KNOWINGLY, WILLINGLY AND DELIBERATELY LYING ABOUT WHAT I'VE SAID. IT IS COWARDLY, DISHONEST, DISHONORABLE AND INSULTING.

His quoting me doesn't mean squat. I did not write the damn laws. All I can do is tell you what the founders said and intended and how we got into this cluster...we're in today.

 

Do you think you're helping anything here?