A restriction of weapons to citizens only would be an abridgement of the right to bear arms. In some places, the Constitution meant “citizen” and in those places, it explicitly said so. It does not say so in the Second Amendment.
legal Non-citizen - yes
illegal - not so much
True. Yet not what you said.
Cite?
True, however the OP was about an illegal so I thought it a clear point of reference
He’s got another note. It’s the “white people are genetically superior to black people note.” But to be fair to your point, I suppose it can be all categorized as the “I hate brown people” note.
So 'gellin, the government orders the man to be deported, the man does not comply, said man later kills some people, and you want the government to be sued even though it did its job, but the man committed crimes. Great idea.
My cite would be that to purchase a weapon in Virginia I had to prove legal residency here. That would, to me, indicate pretty strongly that Second Amendment rights were not held by illegal aliens.
Here’s what I say.
The shooting occurred in Manassas, Virginia. Manassas is in Prince William County. Prince William County is famous for its draconian anti-immigration measures, passed in 2007, somewhat along the lines of what Arizona did but worse.
Those anti-immigrant measures had many bad effects: on employment, on the housing market, and on local businesses. With all those bad things happening as a result, few bothered noticing that Prince William’s crime rate was among the highest in the region. Anti-immigrant groups had promised that their legislation would solve the county’s crime problem, but they were wrong.
The example you choose to give of how lax immigration policy causes crime actually came from a place with the toughest anti-immigration status in the country. Makes you look pretty ridiculous doesn’t it?
What say you?
(And while we’re at it, what say you to the factthat crime rates are much lower among illegal immigrants than among citizens?)
What about situations like the Tuskagee syphilis experiment, where government officials performed (presumably) illegal actions? Can someone be sued for that? I note that the wiki article doesn’t mention anything about a law suit so I’m assuming no. I guess what I’m getting at is what situations, if any, are liable for law suits?
Specifically prohibits aliens, being in the United States illegally
Does the OP realize that when someone sues the federal government, they are, in fact, suing him?
So, you’re saying that it would be legal for the federal government to force all illegal immigrant to convert to Hinduism?
Because I’m pretty sure it’s not.
WTF 
Not all rights apply to illegal aliens. Some do. Second Amendment rights don’t.
As an incidental note, the dominant member of the Beltway sniper duo was actually born in Louisiana. The accomplice was from Jamaica.
I think Miller is saying that illegal immigrants have rights under the First Amendment.
Too bad the string of quotes he jumped in on were referring specifically to the Second Amendment
And too bad you all started this pointless hijack in the first place, given that the Second Amendment is completely and 100% irrelevant to this story.
Ohhh, Lets see… An illegal alien committing murder with a firearm
AND
Wishing the victims had been taking advantage of their Second Amendment rights in order to protect themselves, and family members
How could I possibly think those related to the story :rolleyes:
I have no idea, frankly. Yes, those sentences contain keywords that might make a person think they were relevant if they didn’t speak English, but since the OP is about whether the government should be liable for non-deported immigrants who kill people, it’s hard to imagine anything much more irrelevant than the question of whether the right to legally bear arms applies to non citizens.
Since, you know, the only non-citizen in this story murdered people. Which, FYI, is illegal under all interpretations of the Second Amendment.