Decades of swirlies, wedgies, Magic The Gathering and Harry Potter conventions have rendered these degenerates absolutely [redacted]

In what possible reality do illegal invaders deserve the constitutional rights of Americans?

Ah not buyin; this as advertised. Libertarians are usually nuts but not this insane.

If they took up arms in their home countries, then they would not have to come here and be armed.

And you are correct, Libertarians who vote L based on principle, when they have ZERO chance to win, should just vote Democrat. At least they can say they voted for it !

Question... If I kill an illegal alien for no reason at all, should I face consequences?

waitwhat? said:

---

Question... If I kill an illegal alien for no reason at all, should I face consequences?

---

Last i checked, murder is still illegal

waitwhat? said:

---

Question... If I kill an illegal alien for no reason at all, should I face consequences?

---

Well... Username fits...

I for one think the democrats and republicans are doing an outstanding job

waitwhat? said:

---

Question... If I kill an illegal alien for no reason at all, should I face consequences?

---

Yo wtf?

C@LAg said:

---

libertarians are the gays of politics.

they really are either Dems or Reps, but want to feel special about themselves, so they made up their own party in the middle to claim as their own.

---

most people who lean libertarian do NOT vote LPA when their votes would matter. As a general rule, they break about 1/3 Democrat and 2/3 Republican.

schmellba99 said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Question... If I kill an illegal alien for no reason at all, should I face consequences?

---

Last i checked, murder is still illegal

---

Exactly, because even though they're illegal aliens, they have a right to their life and I should be prosecuted if I end it without cause.

My point is that some rights are God given, and other rights are government given or civil rights. I think we all agree the 2nd amendment is intended to enshrine a God given right to defend oneself, which means illegal aliens have that same right. If they meet the qualifications to own a firearm, then they have a right to unless they commit a crime that removes that right. You can argue that entering the country illegally is a crime that takes away their right to own a firearm and defend themselves, but why does entering illegally remove that right but not their right to life?

If they meet the requirements to legally own a firearm, then they should be able to. And if they're found with one, they can keep it when they're sent back to where they came from.

you're arguing with a poster who belongs to the school of "thought" which insists that non-citizens are not entitled to the protections set forth in the Bill of Rights.

that, for instance, the federal government could not seize your property without due process, but could seize the property of your green card holding Neighbor without any hint thereof.

No, they really do not realize how stupid that concepts is.

I'm not sure where I fall on illegal aliens benefiting from the 2nd Amendment but I believe felons who have completed their sentence/conditional release requirements should be allowed to own a gun.

Once an illegal alian enters our country illegally, the "rights" discussion turns from black and white like it is with citizens into a gray area for the illegals.

I am not sure if that is how our founding fathers envisioned it, but then again I doubt they expected our country to be taken down from within like it currently is.

The Libertarian party took a black and white stance which is foolish in my opinion. Especially with leftists openly being giddy with the downward trajectory our country is going.

Small l libertarianism is good. Libertarian party is a bit wack.

As I've said many many times on this forum - if the republicans want me to vote for them, then they need to make their party suck less. Right now the Republican Party is a bunch of tax and spend losers. If a fiscal conservative runs as a Republican I'll consider voting for him or her. Until then I'll continue to vote 3rd party. Which in Texas means mostly libertarian.

please show us the article, section and clause of the constitution that says "these amendments constrain the actions of the federal government vis--vis citizens, but not vis--vis non-citizens."

Antoninus said:

---

please show us the article, section and clause of the constitution that says "these amendments constrain the actions of the federal government vis--vis citizens, but not vis--vis non-citizens."

---

You are proving my point that I doubt our founding fathers envisioned people making excuses for the destruction of our country. Yet you conveniently left that part of my post out....not shocking since it's more goal tending to aid the left.

And I said gray area. You in all your infinite constitutional wisdom made the strawman that I claimed it being black and white that it does NOT apply to illegals. I never made that claim.

I'm libertarian at heart, but the Libertarian party itself is full [redacted]. Never go full [redacted]. Can't vote for it.

I'll take a libertarian over a leftist any day.

You can argue about the practical effects of it, or try the "What they really meant was…" method to get around it, but virtually all Constitutional scholars would strongly agree that those rights enumerated and described are intended to apply to all humans on the planet. That's the whole essence of the Constitution not granting rights, but prohibiting the government's restriction of them. As far as the bill of rights is concerned, a person living in Iran for example inherently has the same listed rights that Americans have, but their government wrongly deprives them of exercising them. It's not "As an American I have these rights", it's "As an American these natural rights have not been taken from me."

I wish we could ask the principal founders how their documents should translate to our modern world or ask if they would change anything now, but as it is their meaning is very clear.

The issue isn't illegals having guns.

The issue is illegals being here in the first place. They should be rounded up, deported, and get in line for entry to the US legally.

Simple.

Joes said:

---

You can argue about the practical effects of it, or try the "What they really meant was…" method to get around it, but virtually all Constitutional scholars would strongly agree that those rights enumerated and described are intended to apply to all humans on the planet. That's the whole essence of the Constitution not granting rights, but prohibiting the government's restriction of them. As far as the bill of rights is concerned, a person living in Iran for example inherently has the same listed rights that Americans have, but their government wrongly deprives them of exercising them. It's not "As an American I have these rights", it's "As an American these natural rights have not been taken from me."

I wish we could ask the principal founders how their documents should translate to our modern world or ask if they would change anything now, but as it is their meaning is very clear.

---

Good points. I think your viewing it correctly, but practically if a founding father saw the scenario play out today they possibly could have clarifications needing to be made one way or another.

I view it as our founding fathers recognized the first amendment as a natural check on a radicalizing gov and the second amendment as a natural check on a radicalized gov.

Though I doubt they envisioned a sheepish populace that would allow their gov to become as big and radicalized as it is today without correction. Especially if that very gov is enabling illegal immigration.

Otherwise a corrupt gov could essentially import a foreign army through illegal immigration and allow them to arm legally against the will of the sheepish populace.

Joes said:

---

You It's not "As an American I have these rights", it's "As an American these natural rights have not been taken from me."

---

Actually, it is more a matter of "my government has only the powers authorized, and my government is NOT authorized to take these rights away from anyone."

MemphisAg1 said:

---

The issue isn't illegals having guns.

The issue is illegals being here in the first place. They should be rounded up, deported, and get in line for entry to the US legally.

Simple.

---

Tea Party said:

---

Joes said:

---

You can argue about the practical effects of it, or try the "What they really meant was…" method to get around it, but virtually all Constitutional scholars would strongly agree that those rights enumerated and described are intended to apply to all humans on the planet. That's the whole essence of the Constitution not granting rights, but prohibiting the government's restriction of them. As far as the bill of rights is concerned, a person living in Iran for example inherently has the same listed rights that Americans have, but their government wrongly deprives them of exercising them. It's not "As an American I have these rights", it's "As an American these natural rights have not been taken from me."

I wish we could ask the principal founders how their documents should translate to our modern world or ask if they would change anything now, but as it is their meaning is very clear.

---

Good points. I think your viewing it correctly, but practically if a founding father saw the scenario play out today they possibly could have clarifications needing to be made one way or another.

I view it as our founding fathers recognized the first amendment as a natural check on a radicalizing gov and the second amendment as a natural check on a radicalized gov.

Though I doubt they envisioned a sheepish populace that would allow their gov to become as big and radicalized as it is today without correction. Especially if that very gov is enabling illegal immigration.

Otherwise a corrupt gov could essentially import a foreign army through illegal immigration and allow them to arm legally against the will of the sheepish populace.

---

I agree, it's currently a mess, and there are a ton of issues we deal with these days that I wish we could resurrect our founders and just ask them "Now what?" I'm sure there are many things where they'd say that principles are principles regardless of any negative side effects but in other areas they'd probably admit that they just couldn't have foreseen what the world is like now and would argue for more practicality. Who knows. What I do know though is that we should be careful with assuming that any of us are smarter than Jefferson. However smart people assume he was he was actually 100 times smarter. Reading his writings is humbling, and not because of the flowery style of the period but because of his actual thoughts and reasoning.

Ultimately I'm just resigned to the idea that our system of government as designed is about as good as it can get, but unfortunately the vast majority of humans will never be worthy of it. It's like trying to play a game using the honor system with people who have no honor. So we end up with a bunch of great words and ideas that don't work because people generally suck.

Joes said:

---

You can argue about the practical effects of it, or try the "What they really meant was…" method to get around it, but virtually all Constitutional scholars would strongly agree that those rights enumerated and described are intended to apply to all humans on the planet. That's the whole essence of the Constitution not granting rights, but prohibiting the government's restriction of them. As far as the bill of rights is concerned, a person living in Iran for example inherently has the same listed rights that Americans have, but their government wrongly deprives them of exercising them. It's not "As an American I have these rights", it's "As an American these natural rights have not been taken from me."

I wish we could ask the principal founders how their documents should translate to our modern world or ask if they would change anything now, but as it is their meaning is very clear.

---

I dont disagree with you. But that's not the same discussion.

Because our Founding Fathers believed in those basic tenets, they wanted to form a country that protected those rights. Not to defend the entire human race...but our right, as citizens of the USA. It was the principles for us, to establish our country. Not for us to impose or grant to citizens across the world.

If the scope isn't limited to our country, and it's citizens, you would have to make the argument we should be interventionalists across the globe for the same reason. And I know libertarians wouldnt agree with that.

you clearly do not understand the bill of rights, at all.

It does not obligate the government to go out and "protect peoples rights." It simply says that there are certain things the government cannot do.

we can use the second amendment as an example. it says that the United States government is not allowed to interfere with the ownership/possession of firearms.". Nothing in the constitution requires the US government to send troops to (for instance) Angola, and assure that Angolans have access to firearms. It does, however, prohibit the US government from interfering with any person"s ownership of a firearm.

arguably, that limitation is restricted to US soil and territories (there is limited case law on this point), but even that is not clear.

you're arguing against something I didnt say.

But I appreciate your comments about me, based on your own misunderstanding, all the same.

DeProfundis said:

---

Decades of swirlies, wedgies, Magic The Gathering and Harry Potter conventions have rendered these degenerates absolutely [redacted]

In what possible reality do illegal invaders deserve the constitutional rights of Americans?

---

It's always the Louisiana libertarians that give the worst of the libertarian takes... always.

Thats a cool AR though.

They can defend themselves, they just don't have a right to own and carry a gun to do it here.