On giving voting and gun rights to illegal aliens. Yes, the Demoncrat Party and Communist Party USA, joined at the hip on Obama,are opposed to the 2nd Amendment. Both use legal and illegal aliens to pad their voter rolls to gain political victories, and use the power they gain to violate the 2nd Amendment. California is a rabid anti-gun State and the legislature is dominated by elected Hispanic officials from rotten boroughs filled with illegal aliens who vote. Remember B-1 Bob Dornan? A 2nd Amendment supporter lost to Loretta Sanchez, professional Mexican and opponent of the 2nd Amendment.
However, gun nuts apparently think that extending 2nd Amendment rights to illegal aliens is required by the Constitution.
Their argument is a sort of natural rights deal. All humans have rights, illegal aliens are humans, owning a gun is a human right, therefore illegal aliens have a right to own guns. QED. Or reductio ad absurdum.
The Truth About Guns December 26, 2011 Bob KrafftIf anyone had any doubts about how the courts’ view of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, it should be quite clear by the recent decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, decision which concurred with the Fifth Circuit ruling in United States v. Portillo-Muniz, that Second Amendment protections do not apply to illegal aliens (who are specifically barred from possessing firearms by 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)). I see someone at the back of the class has their hand up…you have a question? You want to know why people who are here illegally should be granted the same rights as citizens? Excellent question…Illegals should not be granted the same Constitutional rights as citizens for the same reason citizens should not be ‘granted’ these rights: Because our the rights listed in the Bill of Rights are not granted by the Constitution or the government, they belong to us by virtue of being human beings. Anyone remember this bit?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.According to freedictionary.com, unalienable means “unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor.” After the Constitution’s ratification, some of those unalienable rights were incorporated into the Constitution as the Bill of Rights, but that document no more created them than dirty underwear and wheat create mice. As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875):The right of the people peaceably to assemble for lawful purposes existed long before the adoption of the Constitution of the United States. In fact, it is, and always has been, one of the attributes of citizenship under a free government. … It was not, therefore, a right granted to the people by the Constitution. The government of the United States when established found it in existence, with the obligation on the part of the States to afford it protection.The Court then goes on to apply this logic to the Second Amendment as well, stating,The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.Notice that nowhere in the ruling does the Court state that these pre-existing rights applied only to citizens. Indeed the language makes it clear that the Court felt these were human rights, not mere citizens’ rights...But even within that citation is the guidance which the Fifth Circuit claimed to be looking for, but chose to ignore when SCOTUS analogizes the use of ‘the people’ in the Second Amendment with its use in all the other amendments. Most of which, as we have seen, have been held directly to apply to illegals. Furthermore, if the Fifth Circuit was actually looking for guidance they could have found it in the first sentences of the very paragraph that they quote, where SCOTUS says,We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding ‘interest-balancing’ approach. The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. … [emphasis in original]With all these precedents it’s hard to see how any court, looking honestly at the Constitution and the law, could fail to conclude that “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
QED. Japanese Army soldiers, Pancho Villa, MS-13, Al Queda, anyone can come to the United States and own a gun. And vote. Participation in self-government is a fundamental right of all human beings. Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and all that. A Homo sapien sapiens is a Homo sapien sapiens. There are no distinctions between them. Geographic location, citizenship, etc. are racist social constructs, along with borders between nations, designed to keep the black, brown, and yellow, man down. Those evil racist slave owning Founding Fathers thought that every illegal had a right to vote and own a gun. And even water the tree of liberty with somb o' dem evil raciss white crakas.
In fact, if an illegal alien has a right to own a gun in the United States, then clearly deporting that illegal alien is as much a violation of his natural right to life, liberty and happiness. No illegal alien is happy being deported, much less arrested and detained for just being a human being. No human is illegal. Because there can be no distinctions between human beings. Citizenship is a social construct, ..."subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility."
Even more interesting is that borders are just a lines drawn on a map, created by the democratic process. Which makes Fast and Furious quite legal, as even Mexican drug lords have a right to own guns. Eric Holder was just supporting 2nd Amendment rights for said Mexican drug lords. Which is also why Eric Holder opposes voter identification laws. He supports illegal aliens voting. Voting for Demoncrats who oppose the 2nd Amendment.
What Krafft does not understand is that only citizens in a polity have rights. Children don't have the right to keep and bear arms, or vote, or speak freely, or own property and they are citizens. Nor do aliens, legal or illegal. What they have is only what the democratic process gives them. Illegal aliens are not part of the commonweal. They are by definition alien to the political community. Therefore they do not enjoy said rights. Clearly the courts were wrong when they extended any rights to aliens. Because if they qualify for one right, then they get them all. Which includes voting. Voting to end the 2nd Amendment. One more Obama nomination to the Supreme Court and the 2nd Amendment is a dead letter. Illegal alien voting will ensure that.
And that is part of the program of the Demoncrat Party:
Sunshine State News December 14, 2011Tapping into a growing trend, the Democratic mayor of New Haven, Conn., wants to allow illegal aliens to vote in local elections.John DeStefano said he will forward his proposal to the state Legislature for approval.New Haven, the home of Yale University, has become a haven for illegal immigrants from Central America is recent years -- drawn in part by Connecticut's generous welfare benefits.As reported in the New Haven Register today, six municipalities in Maryland already extend voting rights to noncitizens, and the city of Chicago permits illegal aliens to vote on school issues.
Besides just being wrong about rights, only citizens have rights in a polity, Krafft is wrong about the impact of his principles as well. Gun rights for illegal aliens will not be a bulwark against future violations of the 2nd Amendment, but mean the end of 2nd Amendment rights for him and the rest of us Homo Sapien sapiens in the United States.
The courts were wrong on their failure to uphold the 2nd Amendment for Americans and they are wrong on rights for illegal aliens. Two wrongs are still two wrongs. The 2nd Amendment and all the rights of our nation apply only to citizens.
In fact, distinguishing between citizens and non-citizens is natural and an important part of being a nation. Krafft may be a universalist and a one world government type. He can be nothing more if aliens enjoy the same rights as Americans. But such people are enemies of liberty. Just go to the Congo or China to see how others see human rights. They should not be allowed to decide the fate of the 2nd Amendment. For even if rights are God given, which Krafft seems to have not included in his illegal alien rights screed, it is only a culture that excludes those alien to it that survives with its liberties.