Yes to all of the above.

Is stealing from your neighbors, because your father is in jail and your mother has cancer and your six younger siblings are starving, immoral? Add other exaggerated examples.

It sucks, but illegal is illegal. Lesser of two evils, etc.

Yes illegal is illegal but doing one illegal thing does not mean you are going to do them all. Sure they broke the law by sneaking into the USA, that doesn't mean they are going to steal and rape and murder.

Is stealing from your neighbors, because your father is in jail and your mother has cancer and your six younger siblings are starving, immoral? Add other exaggerated examples.

See, here we differ.  I would say "no."  In the choice between life and stuff, life wins.  The immoral choice, IMHO, would be to let someone die just so you can hang onto your stuff. 

Exceptions granted, of course, for zombie apocalypse and other world-changing conditions.  I am a FIRM believer in situational ethics, in that ethics are a fine thing to have if the situation allows.  TEOTWAWKI rewrites all the rules. 

Wow, you sound a little like some of the anti-gun liberals that want to deny you the opportunity to have/carry a firearm....Remove the reference to illegal aliens and doesn't your arguement sound a lot like something the Brady group would say? I mean really, it's OK to defend yourself, but just not with a gun??

Remove/change a few key words in any sentence and you completely change the meaning. Case and point.

Let's rearrange the words.... Hmmm

I always have a Fox can in hand, that ass is bad stuff.

I just believe that people lacking a certain set of moral characteristics should not be allowed to own a gun because of the increased risk that they will do something immoral and cause a lot of damage to the people around them. Especially when you consider that a staggering number of these illegals are uneducated and come from an area which Tom makes sound like a warzone for druglords and pimps.

Quote from: Dregs on May 11, 2012, 06:09:19 PM

Yes to all of the above.

Is stealing from your neighbors, because your father is in jail and your mother has cancer and your six younger siblings are starving, immoral? Add other exaggerated examples.

It sucks, but illegal is illegal. Lesser of two evils, etc.

See, here we differ.  I would say "no."  In the choice between life and stuff, life wins.

Yes life wins, but your point has been that it's ok to make immoral decisions if you have a good reason. The problem with that is no matter how bad things may seem, there are usually other options available as I illustrated in response to your grim view of the situation in Mexico. Bottom line is, making an immoral decision is s immoral no matter how you want to spin it.

See, here we differ.  I would say "no."  In the choice between life and stuff, life wins.  The immoral choice, IMHO, would be to let someone die just so you can hang onto your stuff. 

Exceptions granted, of course, for zombie apocalypse and other world-changing conditions.  I am a FIRM believer in situational ethics, in that ethics are a fine thing to have if the situation allows.  TEOTWAWKI rewrites all the rules.

You're speaking form the perspective of someone who has something the desperate wants. I thought the conversation was from the perspective of the desperate and the decisions that person makes and whether it's immoral or not. I hope you're not saying that stealing and perhaps other higher crimes are not immoral as long as that person is desperate enough. Whether you're that neighbor/neighbor he's stealing from is, respectfully, a different discussion. 

Perhaps we will agree to disagree, but bottom line remains that illegals, by their very nature, are committing a national crime, and does not deserve to be afforded the same protection as citizens and legitimate immigrants. Their individual story is a moot point.

Everyone here is a descendent of an immigrant.

Some of you are just too uppity to remember that.

Everyone here is a descendent of an immigrant.

Some of you are just too uppity to remember that.

But the issue here is the illegal ones.

[massive snip]

...and does not deserve to be afforded the same protection as citizens and legitimate immigrants. Their individual story is a moot point.

Meandering back to the subject, are we?  Ok, I can play that game!

I don't say that illegal immigrants deserve full and equal protection under the law.  I am saying that laws restricting inalienable rights are wrong.  As someone, I think HiCarry, pointed out, that language sounds awfully familiar.

But the issue here is the illegal ones.

Ask the indigenous peoples of this land just how "legal" our immigration was!

Ask the indigenous peoples of this land just how "legal" our immigration was!

Exactly.

The people that were immigrants to America and Hawaii basically took whatever land they want, put up fences, created "deeds" to the property, and claimed someone else's lands as their own.

Then they created laws saying that nobody could do the same thing to them.

I wonder if I went to your home and fenced off half of your property, created a new law that gives me a deed to YOUR property and branded you a savage when you try to fight for what's rightfully yours, if you'd be happy.

The border between Mexico and America was put up by the new land thieves, umm I mean land owners.

This border separated families and made criminals of people for going to places that they went for centuries before.

It's as if someone made a border halfway through Oahu and called anyone on the left side of the border an illegal alien.

Exactly.

The people that were immigrants to America and Hawaii basically took whatever land they want, put up fences, created "deeds" to the property, and claimed someone else's lands as their own.

Then they created laws saying that nobody could do the same thing to them.

I wonder if I went to your home and fenced off half of your property, created a new law that gives me a deed to YOUR property and branded you a savage when you try to fight for what's rightfully yours, if you'd be happy.

The border between Mexico and America was put up by the new land thieves, umm I mean land owners.

This border separated families and made criminals of people for going to places that they went for centuries before.

It's as if someone made a border halfway through Oahu and called anyone on the left side of the border an illegal alien.

This is completely irrelevant to the current situation. I did not immigrate, I was born here. 5 generations ago my family immigrated here to work in the cane fields. I'm going out on a limb here and assuming most of you were also born here, if not somewhere else in the USA, so most of you are not immigrants either. Today's illegal immigrants from Mexico know very little of what their ancestors' daily life was like and have no connection to that past.

Furthermore, if you want to play timetraveler then you must also say that the current Mexicans are illegal immigrants to Mexico as the Aztecs, Mayans, and other Native American tribes were there first. Or you could just keep moving back in the timeline and say that all of humanity needs to move back to Africa where life began and trump all arguments here.

This is completely irrelevant to the current situation. I did not immigrate, I was born here.

What do YOU have to do with the "current situation"? Irrelevant

Today's illegal immigrants from Mexico know very little of what their ancestors' daily life was like and have no connection to that past.

Apparently your prognistication transcends to every single immigrant and their recollection of their ancestors past?
Ignorant

5 generations ago my family immigrated here to work in the cane fields.

Today's illegal immigrants from Mexico I know very little of what their  my ancestors' daily life was like and have no connection to that past.

Furthermore, if you want to play I'm just playing timetraveler

OK, now your statement makes sense. 

 

What do YOU have to do with the "current situation"? Irrelevant

You dragged me into it by building on Tom's statement about "our immigration" and saying if someone fenced off my property......border across Oahu...etc.

Apparently your prognistication transcends to every single immigrant and their recollection of their ancestors past?
Ignorant

I meant it as they do not live like their ancestors did. They may know things from old stories but they do not live the nomadic/hunter/gatherer or whatever lifestyle their respective tribes were. And that's only if they are of Native American descent because they are most likely descendants of the Spanish explorers who wiped out the native people in Central and South America in their quest for gold.

I like your creative editing 

Remove/change a few key words in any sentence and you completely change the meaning. Case and point.

No "key" words were changed to alter the basic concept of the statement, just the group to which the "restrictions" were applied. Sort of what the Brady groups does. Substitute "police" or "military" for illegal alien and you have the talking points from the Brady group campaign. Your attempt to suggest that changing the group to which the restrictions applied changed the entire meaning or concept suggests a level of intellectual dishonesty or lack of comprehension.

I just believe that people lacking a certain set of moral characteristics should not be allowed to own a gun because of the increased risk that they will do something immoral and cause a lot of damage to the people around them. Especially when you consider that a staggering number of these illegals are uneducated and come from an area which Tom makes sound like a warzone for druglords and pimps.

Who's "moral character" and who gets to decide?" You? What about gays? Do they fall under your definition of "...lacking a certain set of moral characteristics..." thereby excluding them from owning a firearm? What about muslims? Athiests? Nudists? Any of these folks not meet your personal moral criteriafor gun ownership? Your "activist" interpretation of "...all men are created equal..." is at least as bad as the activist judges who somehow read that the Second Amendment wasn't an individual right, but a "collective one" associated with membership in the militia.

No "key" words were changed to alter the basic concept of the statement, just the group to which the "restrictions" were applied. Sort of what the Brady groups does. Substitute "police" or "military" for illegal alien and you have the talking points from the Brady group campaign. Your attempt to suggest that changing the group to which the restrictions applied changed the entire meaning or concept suggests a level of intellectual dishonesty or lack of comprehension.

Maybe I'm experiencing a "lack of comprehension" so let's walk through this. Concept was: criminals should not have guns=>illegal immigrants should not have guns because they are criminals by nature. You said that changing the group of people doesn't change the concept. So if we take illegal immigrants out of the picture, the concept you have a problem with is any kind of gun ownership restriction? Your previous statement contradicts that.

As for illegal aliens having the right to own or possess the firearm, I disagree with the concept. The right to self defense is afforded to everyone. Now, that being said, possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime is illegal most places. So, mearly by being in the country illegally you are committing a crime......

Did I misunderstand something?

Who's "moral character" and who gets to decide?" You? What about gays? Do they fall under your definition of "...lacking a certain set of moral characteristics..." thereby excluding them from owning a firearm? What about muslims? Athiests? Nudists? Any of these folks not meet your personal moral criteriafor gun ownership? Your "activist" interpretation of "...all men are created equal..." is at least as bad as the activist judges who somehow read that the Second Amendment wasn't an individual right, but a "collective one" associated with membership in the militia.

Who da hell said anything about sexual preferences, religious beliefs, and/or choices of clothing? Specifically referring to the topic of this thread, illegal aliens lack morals in the sense that they blatantly disregard laws in order to get what they want. There are legal methods of entry into this country yet they choose the illegal route, it is a choice they make and speaks to their set of moral characteristics.

Maybe I'm experiencing a "lack of comprehension" so let's walk through this. Concept was: criminals should not have guns=>illegal immigrants should not have guns because they are criminals by nature. You said that changing the group of people doesn't change the concept. So if we take illegal immigrants out of the picture, the concept you have a problem with is any kind of gun ownership restriction? Your previous statement contradicts that.Did I misunderstand something?

No, the concept was that the Constitution states all people have inalienable rights, therefore illegal immigrants, are afforded the same basic rights as everyone else. The question then becomes at what line do you start to differentiate between which inalienable rights are afforded one group versus another. Some of those rights, like being free from cruel and unusual punishment (#8), are easily applied to all groups, including illegal aliens. What about due process (#5), or a speedy trial (#6), are these inalienable rights afforded to illegal immigrants? If any of these inalienable rights do appy to illegal aliens, why, and how do you determine what groups get the benefit of which inalienable rights? And, IMHO, any such conditioning of said inalienable right cannot be automatically conditioned on being "illegal" per se....otherwise, it would open the door to having our rights further erroded when similar reasoning is applied to your rights....after all, shoplifting is illegal. So, by the above logic, anyone who has been convicted of shoplifting is a criminal and therefore ineligible to exercise their Second Amendment rights. And, just so we're clear, the crime of ilegal entry is a misdemeanor, just like shoplifting. Maybe you favor more laws like the Lutenberg Amendment that permanently bans anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, which has been used to successfully prosecute a range of behaviors from poking a spouse in the chest with a finger (without any subsequent evidence of injury) to throwing a set of car keys (not in an effort to hit the recipient with them), from ever owning a gun again?

My musing about whether an illegal alien could be prosecuted for having a gun while in the commission of a crime (illegal entry) was just that. A thought on how a prosecutor might try to use existing law to press a case where those circumstances existed. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed with it.

And I do have some concerns on how gun restrictions are applied. Particularily the prohibitions on felons owning guns. The concept of extending Constitutional prohibitions outside of legally mandated confinement or supervision, is, again IMHO, flawed. It has always been understood that once you did your time, you had paid your debt to society and your rights were restored. Besides, there are so many Federal laws on the books that it is incredibley easy to unknowingly commit a felony and not even know it. If you pick up a feather while walking in the woods and put it in your pocket, and that feather is from a protected species, you are now guily of commiting a felony. Clear an obstructed drainage ditch, and you're messin' with land that "has the appearance of wetlands, which is a felony. 

http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=783B7C44AA93208D325B26FBB54FE025

Who da hell said anything about sexual preferences, religious beliefs, and/or choices of clothing? Specifically referring to the topic of this thread, illegal aliens lack morals in the sense that they blatantly disregard laws in order to get what they want. There are legal methods of entry into this country yet they choose the illegal route, it is a choice they make and speaks to their set of moral characteristics.

You are the one that suggested moral character as the measure to use for gun ownership. I simply asked who gets to determine what morals are acceptable and unacceptable. Some on the far right suggest homosexuality is immoral. Do they get to choose? If so, I guess gays don't get guns 'cause they're they don't have the right moral character. Some religions use illegal drugs (American Indians, for example...) so are therefore effectively immoral for breaking the law. Are their moral shortcomings enough to bar them from owning guns? Others think running around naked is immoral. So nudist are now prohibitted from owning guns? So, the question remains, and you have not yet answered it. Instead you ask "...Who da hell said anything about sexual preferences, religious beliefs, and/or choices of clothing?" All topics clearly pointing toward various moral viewpoints, the basis you claim is sufficient to deprive individuals of inalienable rights.....so, again, who gets to choose which moral standards to apply?

I don't think it's criminals per-se who should be prohibited, but those who commit violent crimes against others.  I'm less inclined personally to want to prohibit the Martha Stewarts from having a gun, than I am the MS-13 Gang banger who's dealing on the corner.
The thing here that we are saying is you had a right to self defense if you were a chinese communist, a refuge from another country, an illegal alien, the pope, or whomever else you were.  That was at least the principal at founding.  Nothing gave you that right, the constitution more kind of affirmed it, but you had it before the constitution was about.  So the thing is, if you had this right, why is it being taken away?

The stance on illegal aliens is kind of sticky.  I don't want to pay for their health care; I want our tax system to tax their income spent here (which requires a tax overhaul); I don't want to spend 60k a year to house one of them in a California prison (a $500 one way flight to the middle of mexico works for me). We do however need people to do jobs that American's are 'too good' to do. For instance, Alabama did this thing on banning illegals, and then they ran out of lettuce because no one would pick it. And, when they could find someone to pick it, they were getting paid way too much.   

I tend to agree, but....then the arguments change to why should the violent offender be out in public anyway? The criminal will always be able to get a gun if they are intent to use it to further their criminal activity.

You are the one that suggested moral character as the measure to use for gun ownership. I simply asked who gets to determine what morals are acceptable and unacceptable. Some on the far right suggest homosexuality is immoral. Do they get to choose? If so, I guess gays don't get guns 'cause they're they don't have the right moral character. Some religions use illegal drugs (American Indians, for example...) so are therefore effectively immoral for breaking the law. Are their moral shortcomings enough to bar them from owning guns? Others think running around naked is immoral. So nudist are now prohibitted from owning guns? So, the question remains, and you have not yet answered it. Instead you ask "...Who da hell said anything about sexual preferences, religious beliefs, and/or choices of clothing?" All topics clearly pointing toward various moral viewpoints, the basis you claim is sufficient to deprive individuals of inalienable rights.....so, again, who gets to choose which moral standards to apply?

That is because the discussion had started to venture into the area of ethical decision making. Specifically as it pertained to the life and death struggles of a certain group of people and the morals upheld by these people which is the underlying factor in their decision making on how to get out.

Also, your argument about the use of illegal drugs in religious rituals is half informed and misleading. American Indian tribes and religious groups are permitted to use the drugs because it is protected under some Religious Restoration Act in the 1990's (I forget the name and don't care to research it) which was upheld by the US Supreme Court. While this could be overturned in the future (or may have already been as I really don't care to research) but the important part is that the religious groups seeking to use drugs in their rituals went about doing so the legal way. Completely different from illegal immigrants who choose to forgo legal means and enter the country illegally. I stated my opinion, you just don't like it and want to rip into it anyway you can. Just stop, I don't care for your half-witted attempts at dragging an argument out.