Undocumented Immigrants Have Right to Own Guns, Judge Rules

If you think there is any commonality, you would need to demonstrate that.

 

Syntax is the construction of a sentence or phrase or paragraph which combines to form a proper structural form.

The syntax of the constitution is consistent throughout. The constitution consistently begins its phrasing by identifying who it is talking about. It then proceeds to describe what applies to those whom it identified.

For instance the first amendment begins with CONGRESS and the rest of it deals with what Congress cannot do.

The second amendment begins with the militia and talks about what the people that make up the militia can do.

I could go through all of them if you'd like but I'll just go straight to the 14th.

The 14th begins by describing what "persons" they are discussing. Those persons are those who were either born or naturalized here and are us citizens. It then goes on to discuss what rights those persons it identified at the beginning have.

As far as I'm aware there is NO instance in the any of the amendments where it starts off identifying one group and then moves to a COMPLETELY different group of people without identifying exactly whom they are referring to.

The syntax of the constitution is extremely consistent. So to assert the 14th starts off talking about persons being citizens and then it goes on to discuss other "persons" whom they don't explicitly identify as non-citizens is a break of syntax and that's NOT how the constitution works.

That's why the author of the 14th said "OBVIOUSLY this doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens". It was OBVIOUS because that's how the syntax of the constitution is structured.

 

There is no militia - certainly not a militia where members must supply weapons - like in the time when this amendment was written.

The clearly stated justification for the 2nd amendment doesn't exist anymore.

There is no reason to discuss the 14th amendment.

 

You didn't address the point. We aren't discussing the validity of the second amendment. We are discussing SYNTAX of the constitution.

On what grounds do you or ANYONE else assert that the constitution is perfectly consistent throughout in its syntax EXCEPT in the 14th amendment?

 

Wait. You are OK with undocumented migrants having weapons while in the United States ?

 

The use of "person" is consistent in the 14th, too.

What is it that you see as inconsistent.

 

They are entitled to self sense in my opinion.

 

So when mexico sends their "worst", you're OK with them getting guns ?

You dont want them here, but you're OK with them being armed

WTAF ?

You 2A'rs never cease to amaze me.

 

In fact, TheImortal says a significant reason for guns is so we can overthrow the government.

So, NATURALLY we want undocumented aliens armed to the teeth!

 

I don’t want them here. However I do feel everyone is entitled the right to self defense. Are you saying that Mexico sends their worst here?

 

Looking down the line, this could be the beginning of the end of prohibited persons making background checks unenforceable(not like they do much of that any way) and dead(no prohibited persons, and that’s what the form is for, to find out if you are one). If it stands anyway. So me, being a 2A guy, is quite happy with this ruling as it can lead to people like me, a stoner in Colorado, being able to purchase firearms legally, IF it is allowed to remain in place(this will get appealed) of course. That’s looking at the big picture.

TL/DR: Not a fan of illegal immigration, but this case, along with Hunter Biden’s, can kill the idea of prohibited persons rendering background checks null and void, making this 2A guy quite happy.

 

So these people you call “criminals”, and that you say are here to “overthrow the country”, and are “only here to rape an pillage”, you want them to have guns “to protect themselves” ?

You have officially jumped the shark.

 

.... you obviously didn't read my other post.

Here I'll post it for you again.

The 14th begins by describing what "persons" they are discussing. Those persons are those who were either born or naturalized here and are us citizens. It then goes on to discuss what rights those persons it identified at the beginning have.

As far as I'm aware there is NO instance in the any of the amendments where it starts off identifying one group and then moves to a COMPLETELY different group of people without identifying exactly whom they are referring to.

The syntax of the constitution is extremely consistent. So to assert the 14th starts off talking about persons being citizens and then it goes on to discuss other "persons" whom they don't explicitly identify as non-citizens is a break of syntax and that's NOT how the constitution works.

That's why the author of the 14th said "OBVIOUSLY this doesn't apply to foreigners or aliens". It was OBVIOUS because that's how the syntax of the constitution is structured.

 

Yes, each section of the 14th amendment states who that section applies to.


A militia is an organized group that had to bring there own weapons and fight for our free state.

The 2nd amendment states THAT is why people have to be allowed guns. The may be called up for defense.

Today, that justification for gun ownership doesn't even EXIST!

The justification in the 2nd amendment is DEAD.

That doesn't mean that states can't allow guns. It just means that the federal government can't override state decisions on guns based on the 2nd amendment.

Our USSC has been highly politicized for quite a while. So, they have decided gun issues according to what Republicans want, regardless of whether there is a valid argument for federal interference in state decisions.

What happened to "state's rights"?

 

When did I say they are only here to rape and pillage? Maybe they are here illegally and they definitely broke the law if they are here illegally. You may have a point there.

 

These illegal scumbags now have more rights than some Americans.

Fuk elected Democrat scumsuckers

 

Next, they'll plan an insurrection!

 

But these “invaders” should have guns ?

It amazes me how you righties can twist and contort yourselves into these positions. “We must close the border becasue they are invaders here to take our country over”…….”oh, and they can have guns also”…..

You cant make this crap up with a team of writers….

 

What a tortured response to not answer "yes, everyone needs to carry an ID" of some kind.

 

No, American citizens DO NOT need to carry identification of ANY kind.

And, even if you have ID in your possession, there is law on whether you are required to provide that ID to officials who ask for it.

This is America.

 

Hilarious.

Unless you're one of those unemployed Democrats riding your skateboard to work, then yeah, you carry ID.

Most adults that do things like have jobs and drive have 4 or 5 forms of ID on them at any given time.

If you're a Democrat and don't have a job or a car then you might fall into that category.

 

This is not about the behavior of "most adults".

Citizens are not required to carry ID in the USA.

There are specific privileges that may require licenses or id for that activity - driving, fishing, flying are examples.

 

Great.

So all those people not driving don't need ID.

Must be 10's of them out there.

 

Do you seriously think most adults don't carry ID?

 

Don't need to CARRY ID.

The reason this came up is that there is a movement to allow agencies other than the federal government to decide to deport people.

So, they find someone who looks Mexican to them, and the demand ID. Even if they HAVE id in their pocket, they aren't required to show it.

We've already made numerous deportations that have had intolerable consequences, given our biases and hates.

This sounds like a movement to require certain populations to always carry ID lest them find themselves in some foreign country, while white folks can continue to be American citizens.