Illegals Don’t Have Second Amendment Rights
BY Herschel Smith
3 months, 2 weeks ago
That’s the correct decision.
Notice I didn’t say that RKBA isn’t a God-given right, because it is. I agreed that illegals don’t have second amendment rights. It’s our contract, not theirs. They can go back to their own homeland and force the government to adopt a covenant and contract that recognizes God-given rights just like we did.
Everyone has problems. You have your problems, I have mine. The problems of the illegal alien are not my problems. I have enough of my own to deal with. I can’t solve everyone else’s problems for them. And neither can America.
I’m not interested in the libertarian answer to this. I’m not a libertarian. I’m a Christian.
Illegals don’t have a right to be here to begin with. The fact that they’re here doesn’t mean that they can take advantage of the covenant and contract we have with our country (such as it is, and for as long as it lasts).
The Holy Writ stipulates to be kind to the sojourner among you. Sojourners don’t lay down roots and steal from you and try to undermine your own covenant and contract. They pass through. Becoming part of the tribe means adopting the values and faith of the tribe.
Enough said. This is the right decision. Illegal aliens are not part of “the people.”
On September 3, 2024 at 7:54 am, Randolph Scott said:
My feelings exactly. Take the illegals to the shorelines and them them to hit the road jack!
On September 3, 2024 at 7:56 am, Randolph Scott said:
My feelings exactly. Take the illegals to the shorelines and tell them to hit the road jack!
On September 3, 2024 at 9:26 am, george 1 said:
Note that Pelosi just said in an interview with Bill Maher that she was going to see that all of the illegals are given citizenship and free housing. That describes the “elites” position.
The founding stock are barely clinging to franchise in America. We are being replaced and that process is much further along than many imagine. Both political parties and their respective presidential candidates are all in on it as well.
On September 3, 2024 at 11:27 am, Hoss Green said:
If your here illegally you have no rights! You want the same rights that we, and our ancesetors fought, shed blood, and died for? Go back to your homeland, and do what we did to gain our rights. It seems they want everything handed to them free.
On September 3, 2024 at 12:59 pm, Bones said:
Amen.
On September 3, 2024 at 1:21 pm, scott s. said:
Your argument seems consistent with that of Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sanford.
On September 3, 2024 at 1:32 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@scott s.,
Meaning what? You’re comparing my views on illegal immigrants with a decision on slavery?
Really? You’re doing that?
Is this supposed to be taken as a serious analysis?
On September 3, 2024 at 4:49 pm, IA Brooks said:
@scott s.:
Illegal aliens are criminals; they chose their legal and moral debility. The two cases bear no relation to each other whatsoever.
On September 3, 2024 at 6:27 pm, PGF said:
I will, Africans are not us and our posterity. They have no rights. If you don’t believe me just ask one, they can’t articulate any rights or a reasonable basis for having them.
On September 3, 2024 at 6:48 pm, Frank Clarke said:
The BoR is meant to restrain the government, yet here is a group of (presumably) anti-government activists saying “You go, government! Infringe that right for the unworthy!”
Checkmate, I’ve got no come-back for that.
On September 3, 2024 at 7:26 pm, Herschel Smith said:
@ Frank Clarke,
Your objection is as silly as scott s’ is stupid and insulting.
You are essentially arguing the equivalent of the notion that there should be no such thing as borders and national sovereignty.
Yes, I’m in fact arguing for government infringement – of hordes of invaders and those who would violate our border, which is basically about the only thing assigned to the FedGov (except for road signage).
I’m arguing for such infringement that I think invaders ought to be shot.
They are certainly not entitled to the rights guaranteed under the BoR.
But as I said, I’m a Christian, not a libertarian.
It’s funny how libertarians argue sometimes. On the one hand, they want to keep the government out of their business. On the other hand, they don’t recognize borders and thus would invite anyone in who wanted to … um … mess in their business.
You know. All of that stuff about consistency being the hobgoblin of small minds, or something.
On September 4, 2024 at 8:54 am, george 1 said:
The Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were all written for “Englishmen.”
“All men are created equal? That phrase was written for “Englishmen.” The posterity Jefferson was talking about was the posterity of “Englishmen.” Of course the term was understood to also include others of European origins.
This can be shown to be true because because it is obvious that all men are not created equal. If all men were equal then Einstein would be equal to a bushman with a sub 60 IQ. Their souls can all be equal in God’s eyes but we are talking about the franchise that used to make us Americans.
If you want to maintain a free and advanced society then you must enforce standards. Probably too late for that at this point.
On September 4, 2024 at 10:52 am, Frank Clarke said:
@HS: The problem is that government is failing at one duty, guarding the border, and so it must now fail at another, protecting the 2nd amendment.
On September 4, 2024 at 11:00 am, Herschel Smith said:
You are engaged in yet another mischaracterization of the issue.
The FedGov is failing at their primary duty.
Disarming invaders is not failing at protecting the 2A. It’s a mere backstop BECAUSE of the initial and first failure.
I believe as you do that the FedGov cannot infringe on the rights of American citizens (under the BoR) concerning the RKBA.
Illegals are not American citizens.
This is a simple point and one that I cannot understand why you don’t get.
It isn’t any more the duty of the American government to protect the RKBA for illegals than it is the duty of the American government to protect the RKBA for Africans or Asians.
On September 4, 2024 at 7:10 pm, george 1 said:
@ Herschel
I was a libertarian at one time. Then I turned 12.
On September 4, 2024 at 7:35 pm, Frank Clarke said:
&HS: “citizen” appears exactly zero times in the BoR…
On September 4, 2024 at 7:52 pm, Herschel Smith said:
But both states (prior to the articles of confederation) and the national government had laws concerning the naturalization of foreigners.
While citizenship within a county or state was granted comity with other counties and states (generally), there was certainly a concept of rights < => citizenship.
Oh, there’s no sense in going here because I’m not going to convince you.
I do recommend that you do a Socratic dialogue with yourself to see just how far this goes with you.
On your system, we should arm foreign armies to make war against the U.S.
On September 5, 2024 at 7:14 pm, Herschel Smith said:
Let’s try one more time to help you understand. If you read a number of texts, from Gary North, to the WCF Chapter 22 on lawful oaths and vows, you’ll see that God rules His creation by covenant and contract. Also see most classical theological textbooks on covenant.
Everything is controlled by covenant and contract in the Christian faith.
Marriage is a covenant and contract, with blessings for obedience, and curses for disobedience.
Business is ruled by covenant and contract, with blessings for obedience and curses for disobedience.
Church life is ruled by covenant and contract.
The relationship between a state and its people is ruled by covenant and contract. Always and forever.
A covenant and contract is always between two parties. It’s never between all parties everywhere, nor is it between a sole party. It’s always two parties.
The American constitution is a covenant and contract between the state and its people. It is not a covenant and contract between some unnamed entity or between everyone and everyone, it’s between two parties. And not a sole party (between a party and no one else), and not a multitude of parties.
Illegal aliens are not party to the covenant and contract.
On September 7, 2024 at 9:08 am, PGF said:
@George 1, you are correct about Englishmen. A better argument for the equality of men is the fact it’s drawn from Scripture as a reference purely to matters of God’s law.
God is no respecter of persons; all are condemned by God to suffer death and hell for their sin, and Christ offers forgiveness from sin and salvation from hell; all are equal before the judgment throne of the Almighty.
This concept was taken directly from Scripture and applied to law; the constitution is law, not a general social statement on the intelligence or abilities of men.