re: Is the Libertarian Party of Louisianan a real thing?

Imagine hiring a dude with almost a half a million posts on td

quote:

---

Him a Rog are both incels that think being libertarian idealogues

---

\

I take it you enjoy current restrictions on firearms.

You would be ok with "assault rifle bans."

Because guns are dangerous and people need protecting. Is that you?

quote:

---

5 minutes on DuckDuckGo, and another 5 minutes to read. Geez, you call yourself a lawyer?

---

You posted a (poorly written) law review article by a MAGA pundit

quote:

---

The language “necessary to the security of a free State” suggested to the Heller Court that an armed citizenry “is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections” and is “better able to resist tyranny.”80 Does the collective aspect of the Second Amendment conflict with the individual right to self-defense? No, it does not, the Court wrote.81 Instead, collective security is one important result of the right to bear arms, but it is not “the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”82 The Heller Court also wrote that around the time of the Founding, “some state constitutions used the term ‘the people’ to refer to the people collectively, in contrast to ‘citizen,’ which was used to invoke individual rights.”83 These findings suggest that the right to bear arms shares a common cause with citizenship and the preservation of the common good.

---

He literally provides evidence that contradict his conclusory statement

Again, from his own work:

quote:

---

To summarize, the Supreme Court first determined that “the people” of the Second Amendment follows the Verdugo-Urquidez framework, a case in which the Supreme Court wrote that aliens do enjoy some constitutional protections.

---

quote:

---

Courts have held “the people” of the First and Fourth Amendments to include noncitizens, even including illegal aliens inside the country.

---

quote:

---

In both the First and Fourth Amendment contexts, this can result in curtailed rights.109 The Supreme Court has established that all the freedoms of the First Amendment apply to aliens inside U.S. borders110: “[O]nce an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders. Such rights include those protected by the First [Amendment] .

---

His 2 counters involve deportations, which are not applicable to a discussion about rights. Nobody is arguing this person can't be deported (assuming if legal due process is followed)

quote:

---

But this right is not absolute, especially when applied to aliens.112 In Harisiades v. Shaughnessy113342 U.S. 580 (1952). in 1952, the Supreme Court allowed the deportation of non-U.S. citizen Communist Party members despite their First Amendment claims.114 Because statutes affecting aliens overlap with the foreign relations power of the “political branches of government,” the Supreme Court afforded greater leniency to restrictions on their freedom to join the Communist Party.115 Even though these noncitizens were engaged in activities in which citizens would be free to participate, the Court upheld their deportation.116
This was not the first time the Court had allowed Congress to take action against a noncitizen for exercising what would be inalienable First Amendment rights for a citizen.117 In United States ex rel. Turner v. Williams,118 the Supreme Court upheld a deportation order for an alien anarchist in the face of a First Amendment challenge.

---

Deportation is not applicable to this discussion in any way.

I can glance at the rest later, b/c I have to go to court now

You’re an advocate for illegals. “Conservatives”

I'm an advocate for our rights and decreasing government oppression into individuals' lives as much as is possible to keep society functioning at a high level.

This applies to in groups, out groups, good guys, bad guys, etc.

quote:

---

You posted a (poorly written) law review article by a MAGA pundit

---

Because your opinion is so much wiser

One of the main purposes of the Second Amendment is for the CITIZEN'S to organize into a militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government, should it become a tyranny. If foreigners who enter this country illegally take up arms against the government, that is considered an invasion and an act of war. Funny you could not realize that ...

quote:

---

The language “necessary to the security of a free State” suggested to the Heller Court that an armed citizenry “is useful in repelling invasions and suppressing insurrections” and is “better able to resist tyranny.”80 Does the collective aspect of the Second Amendment conflict with the individual right to self-defense? No, it does not, the Court wrote.81 Instead, collective security is one important result of the right to bear arms, but it is not “the only reason Americans valued the ancient right; most undoubtedly thought it even more important for self-defense and hunting.”82 The Heller Court also wrote that around the time of the Founding, “some state constitutions used the term ‘the people’ to refer to the people collectively, in contrast to ‘citizen,’ which was used to invoke individual rights.”83 These findings suggest that the right to bear arms shares a common cause with citizenship and the preservation of the common good.

---

quote:

---

One of the main purposes of the Second Amendment is for the CITIZEN'S to organize into a militia for the purpose of overthrowing the government,

---

And another was self defense.

Now go ahead and argue the liberal point again... Ya'll are doing great at forming pro gun control arguments.

quote:

---

Has zero to do with letting illegals have guns

---

If a dude bought an 80% kit and made a gun, more power to him.

frick the government. edit: shite, one of you rubes will probably report me to the ATF.

Do you think more gun laws will mean less guns in criminal hands?

Do you think arming illegals will fix our immigration?

quote:

---

And another was self defense.

Now go ahead and argue the liberal point again... Ya'll are doing great at forming pro gun control arguments.

---

It's all or nothing, you cannot separate the two. If you give them the right to self defense, you also give them the right to overthrow the government. So you support giving foreigners the right to overthrow the United States government, and planting their flag on the Capital? Nice to know.