So I have an apparently not so crazy idea, since the 2nd amendment is suppose to be in place so we can fend off a tyrannical government, what if we gave firearms to the people who apparently need them the most, illegals. So bare with me here, the idea most right wing gun nuts and some 2nd amendment advocates have is that if the Government came into our community, started mass rounding people up, and throwing them in cages, we would stand up and defend ourselves. This is an idea that I’ve heard from virtually everyone who’s pro gun or pro 2nd amendment. Now considering this, shouldn’t we be arming the illegals so they can protect themselves from the feds coming and snatching them up?
So let’s say a saunctuary city or state decides to arm every illegal immigrant. We give them AR15s, body armor, and thousands of mags. How would the right respond to this? I imagine you’d have a bunch of right wingers crying about taking their guns, because it’s a danger to law enforcement. Maybe I’m wrong, and most right wingers will love this and then fox news will air segments praising them for being armed to defend themselves against a tyrannical government.
I don’t see why someone from the Right would like this. They A)want illegal aliens gone and B)want citizens to have guns. So far as I know, 2A doesn’t apply to someone not in the country legally.
To me, it seems like a gotcha that didn’t work.
The bill of rights apply to all persons including illegals. The 2nd amendment does apply, as well as the 1st, third, fourth, and so on.
If not, let’s say illegals had 0 rights… then whats stopping police from violating everyones 4th amendment right unless they prove they’re a US citizen?
Edit: Yes, there are a few exceptions, such as the right to vote. Just wanted to point this out before one of you dopers tries to snipe my post.
Can’t edit my post but going off the point I made, you could pass federal background checks to stop illegals from getting guns. Then the states couldn’t arm illegals, since those illegals would need federal background checks, and once they’re found to be here illegally I’d imagine they would be denied.
So this could be more than a “gotchya” and actually used in real life to get some common sense gun legislation passed.
Edit: If theres one thing that motivates the right, it’s fear. Especially of brown people.
Okay, I didn’t know it applied to anyone on US soil (though I do see a federal ban on illegal aliens possessing guns).
When I read your question and saw “if the Government came into our community, started mass rounding people up, and throwing them in cages, we would stand up and defend ourselves”, I thought a better (or different) question would be. If that’s why they claim they need a gun, lets make that they only time it can be discharged. Defending yourself against this specific situation, okay, any other time, get charged with [attempted] murder.
“Illegals”?
Really?
Didn’t know about the federal ban on illegals possessing guns, but I do see a ruling that since some kid didn’t know he was illegally possessing a gun, and was not charged.
Enforcing borders, collecting taxes, and inspecting chickens isn’t most people’s idea of a tyrannical government. Why have an army if we are going to arm anyone who just walks across the border?
That had nothing to do with the point of this thread nor was it anything about arming asylum seekers from being illegally punished for seeking asylum.
The point here, was that we should arm illegals (asylum seekers aren’t illegals, they are just undocumented in many cases) so they can protect themselves from ICE raids which using right winged logic are a gross violation of the government being tyrannical. The idea here is to use right winged logic against them, knowing that they are both afraid and hate illegals and brown people in general.
If you told a right winger 4 years ago that the federal government was going to raid your community and mass detain your community members, Joe Blow with his AR15 and NRA bumper sticker would likely stand up and say fuck that. So using that fear of government, I’m bringing up a real world example of that actually happening, it’s just happening against illegals and brown people (a bit off topic but a lot of US citizens get wrapped up into this as well, being detained for days). So knowing this conflict, I bring up arming those immigrants who right wingers are afraid of, to fend off the government which right wingers in this situation would normally say is tyrannical.
All of this was before I was aware of a fed ban on illegals possessing firearms. However it does appear a judge ruled in favor of an illegal who claimed he didn’t know his firearm was illegally possessed. So maybe If I really wanted to run with this idea I could always argue that loophole.
Dude, I’m not going to be able to take you seriously if you insist on using “illegal” as a noun.
We must nationalize the gun manufacturers to ensure thst evety citizen, regardless of income or savings, has their own firearm as the Founding Fathers clearly intended.
The inability to afford a gun obviously infringes on a citizen’s right to own a gun.
(I might even go with a modification of the Swiss system and require gun ownership and demonstrated proficiency with that weapon as a requirement for citizenship.)
This dumb hypothetical would be a dream scenario for most right wingers. They would just love an excuse to go “hunting”.
I disagree with your premise that enforcing legitimate immigration law is tyrannical. Having the second amendment as a hedge against the possibility of a tyrannical government at some point in time doesn’t mean that the government is currently tyrannical.
First, if we’re going to call people who entered the country illegally “illegals” then we should call everyone who’s ever broken a law an illegal. Got a speeding ticket, a DUI, or a marijuana bust in your past? You’re an illegal now.
Second, I think the OP is missing the most obvious grounds for conservatives to object to this proposal; the idea of giving guns and ammunition to people. Even the staunchest Second Amendment supporter only says that he has a constitutional right to buy firearms. I haven’t seen anyone saying he has a right to be given them for free.
English is not a prescriptive language; I support the use of the noun “illegal(s)” as meaning “undocumented immigrant,” because it means being present illegally in this country. Oh, and you know what? I support open borders. Economic freedom is the freedom to emigrate and immigrate. But laws are laws, and if you break the the law, you are acting in an illegal fashion. Back to the first sentence regarding prescriptivism: “illegal” is commonly understood, and to fight it is pretty stupid. Instead of going against the tide, please join those of us who support the argument for open borders rather than argue over meaningless semantics.
You’re here illegally? You’re “an illegal.” Sorry about that, but some day we will eliminate that distinction.
Let’s make that day today, because people are not illegal.
There’s nothing stupid about pushing back against the use of dehumanizing and insulting language, even if it’s “commonly understood”. The N-word, for example, is very commonly understood, but it’s not stupid to push back against racists using it.
Then you can stop using it. Because nobody is here illegally. The law in question says that people can’t cross the border illegally. But once they’ve crossed the border, they’re not breaking any further laws by living here.
As a certified right-winger, I’ll just say that this idea is idiotic and won’t work. If you want to try to arm the “illegals”, I’ll gladly report you to the ATF so that they can apprehend and prosecute you. Here is some relevant reading material:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/qa/whom-may-unlicensed-person-transfer-firearms-under-gca
Whom, you may be asking, is “prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law”?
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/identify-prohibited-persons
Depending on the state you live in, you may be violating various state laws about the transfer of firearms too.
So we can turn Berkeley into an armed camp? I’m not really a right-winger, but I’m happy to try that type of social experiment. Let’s also mandate liberalism indoctrination sessions so the immigrants are taught the value of political correctness, how to be woke, tofu recipes, and the latest plans for Marxist global socialism. Should bringing the AR-15’s (Why not M-16’s? Shouldn’t we be giving these immigrants every advantage?) to the lectures be optional or mandatory?