Are Legal Immigrant Patriots wrong

Hi Everyone.

So, I am in several groups, including Gun groups of course. Many of which claim that they are based on Patriotism, The American Way and Support the Constitution.

Lately there has been an influx of Legal Immigrant Americans, who seem to think that the Second Amendment is not as important as, say, the Right to Peaceably Assemble.

I whole heartedly disagree with that notion, mainly of course because I am a staunch 2nd Amendment Supporter, Concealed carrier, Veteran and Patriot and lover of our country!

While these Legal Citizens want to talk about how the 'good old boy" will shout to heaven, “We got guns, the government will not overtake us”, and then calling the good old boys, misdirected. These citizens also post things like if all else fails, grab your guns and get ready, its coming!

Is that not the same as these good old boys screaming “come and take them”? I mean, I’m a born and raised rebel, and you wont come and take mine, but I don’t go advertising to the government that way either, because I believe it takes intellectual discourse to maintain a foothold in these fights.

So my question is this. In your opinions, are these Legal Immigrant Americans wrong? It is time to be in the streets (Sans guns), with placards, signs, megaphones, marches for Freedom saying clearly that we are redressing grievances against the republic ? And if so, is that tool (As shown by the whining liberal right) as strong or stronger today than our Beloved Second Amendment?

If its not, why not and why is the second more relevant today than ever?

Thanks Ladies and Gentlemen!

Deo Vendice!


The 2nd Amendment is crystal clear, any Legal Immigrant can have whatever worthless opinion they want…You either support the 2nd 100% as written or you are not a True American…same as rest of the Bill of Rights, picking and choosing what suits you shows what a Coward you are…



I agree with you - 2nd amendment is just as important today as it ever was. I also don’t think challenging the government to come and take our guns (Molon labe), is a good idea. But, for those who choose to post such a statement, good luck!

Problem with a lot of immigrants, both legal and illegal, is that they usually don’t fully understand or appreciate our heritage. So, when we talk about how valuable the 2nd amendment is to us, they generally don’t get it. Of course, most countries don’t have the attitude that the government works for the people. Instead, they have governments that are designed to control their people and not overly concerned about individual rights.

Is it time to be in the streets with signs, etc. ? I think that should be an ongoing thing we do - perhaps every month, or at least quarterly. Sure, we are all ‘busy’, so maybe each concerned citizen only makes it to the streets with signs once a year, but all totaled, we could still have quarterly (or better), freedom marches.

Bottom line - yes, the legal immigrant patriots are wrong.


Rock island admin:

You and I both know the people you are referring to in this thread are in fact hypocritical beings, and the only thing that would help them see the light is being in a combat situation.

Short answer: yes they are wrong.


First I think we can safely remove the word immigrant (legal or otherwise) from this conversation. The problem is with the prevalence of the “entitlement” attitude with many (or most) of the youth today, propagated by the media and “educators” in our schools. We the people have slowly allowed our government at all levels (especially the national level) to whittle away at our freedoms.
We’ve all heard, I assume, about boiling a frog. Throw him in a pot of boiling water and he’ll fight to get out. Put him in a cool pot and slowly raise the temperature and he’ll happily bathe until he finds himself properly cooked.
We ought all understand that we do not (and should not) live in a democracy. We are a republic. Majority rules only until it collides with our constitutional freedoms. This is no longer taught in schools. They may quote “All men are created equal…” which is surly true. But all men do not stay equal. It is up to the individual to engage in “the pursuit of happiness” with no guarantee he will attain it.
So today we have the modern left blindly, ignorantly and to they’re ultimate detriment using their 1st Amendment right to beg the government to take virtually all their other rights. And fortunately with the no holds barred attack on our 2nd Amendment rights, turned up the heat a bit too quick. We’re becoming aware as a whole that we’re being cooked.
So to your questions.

Yes. Except for the “sans guns” part.

First I hope you meant the whining liberal ‘left’. And second, no. That tool is not stronger than our “Beloved Second Amendment.” But it ought to be the first line of defense backed up by our 2nd Amendment.

As a side note given the harassment of some of our cabinet members, and a certain Ca Reps comments, I’d like to get about 30 or 40 people to follow Maxine “Sewer” Waters around and let her know our thoughts.


I’ve tried that in another thread
So again here


Well I guess that was a conversation killer. Jeez. Sorry. Or am I? :thinking:

1 Like

I would never use “sans” were it not in the original post.
Wait. Let me rephrase that…
Hey dude, I didn’t start it…he did.


No. I’m just no good at this. To old.


What the Fuck is the liberal right?


Not really. We are talking about the perspective of a movement by a Legal Immigrant, who is not young. We’re talking about 50 or so, but maybe immature in understanding our Republic. But point well made.


I totally agree.

As to the sans guns, mquinn55, that certainly is not my belief. The point was that these alleged whining rights, are saying we should march in the streets and protest like the left does, yet without our guns. Of which, of course I totally and vehemently disagree.

No sir, meant what I said. We have the left, and we have the whiney right who are , in my opinion just not doing it right. You cant weigh one right over the other, and expect to have a viable movement , in my opinion. For example the separation of First and Second Amendment when fighting for, or exercising the same.

and For Robert:

It is not very complex to use our language appropriately. If you get lost using it, perhaps sit out the next conversation that includes the term.


If you don’t think there is a Liberal Right, you have not been paying attention. A Conversation for another day.

Thanks for the input Gentlemen, for the most part, I think were all on the same page.

Semper Fi


Face the corner…

1 Like

Ok so to whom are we referring here and does this movement have a name? While you may be referring to one individual and his movement I think we all know the same perspective is far more widespread.

Initially I thought “whiney right” was a typo. I now only slightly better understand who you mean. I think you mean (and please correct me if I’m wrong) those on the right who complain about right infringement and DO nothing. And I agree it’s far more than just the 2A that’s being attacked from the left.
If my understanding is correct, I again point to my boiling frog analogy. I think the heat from the left has been turned up too fast and we’re about to fight our way out.
I’ve been sending letters to government officials at local, state and fed level for years. I recently got involved with the CRPA here in Ca and began attending events. I hope to be able to attend a Orange County Fair board meeting tomorrow. (Not 100% sure at this point). But I think it’s time for a more organized movement on our side that includes the pro 2A guys and a wider base of conservatives to start a bit of civil disobedience as well.

So if this is what you’re alluding to, then I think we are on pretty much the same page. At least in the same chapter of the book.


No star is too big for me. Feeling like I might go super nova at any moment.

And I think your Without sans comment would be better written as “San sans.” Then I’d have given you a big star. 10mm maybe.


Asking the government for permission to exercise your rights is one of the biggest piles of bullshit we have ever been sold (or bought into). There are no such things as Constitutional Rights. We have rights, period. They do not derive from the Constitution.


Plisskyn, et al: Yeah, I think they are called “inalienable rights”.

While there is not a specific list of rights that are considered inalienable in the Constitution, there are some rights that are generally accepted as natural rights of man. The list is extensive, and the following are but a few:

To act in self-defense (emphasis added)
To own private property
To work and enjoy the fruits of one’s labor
To move freely within the county or to another country
To worship or refrain from worshipping within a freely-chosen religion
To be secure in one’s home
To think freely


Lately there has been an influx of Legal Immigrant Americans, who seem to think that the Second Amendment is not as important as, say, the Right to Peaceably Assemble.

It’s worth remembering that Immigrants generally come from societies that do not recognize the right of, or allow the private ownership of guns.
Small wonder they don’t value the 2nd Amendment.

Where they came from, They are lucky if public demonstrations don’t require permission from the very authorities who are the subject of the demonstration.

That’s what they know; that’s what they are accustomed to.

It makes ya’ wonder if the the naturalization process still includes knowing the Bill Of Rights and the Constitution.


kind of funny that if you were to look into it, you might discover that the LIAs first purchase were firearms, right after the car, fridge and 70" TV. Most LIA’s would be educated, middleclass and understand the concept of freedom and rights.
ILIA (Illegal Immigrant ) again being less educated are in the USofA for a better life and bright lights, most likely understand the freedoms presented. With that being said there is also a large portion of this populace that wants not to change their way of life and in fact impose it on their new home.

1 Like

While “inalienable” is a nice idea and ideal to live by it is clearly not a universal idea or ideal. The governments of many countries regularly withhold or take these “rights” from these people.
What is meant by “Constitutional” rights it that in this country we have our constitution to protect these rights by being taken away by our government. The constitution does not give us these rights but sets them up as off limits to the government.

I disagree with the end of this sentence in particular. The fact that countries are defined by borders means one cannot nor should not be allowed to ignore that border. The way you’ve worded this illustrates the problem we’re having at our souther border now.


I’m assuming for the moment it was written in error or in haste. He may simply mean to legally move between countries or simply that we are free to leave this one if we wish. We’re not held captive here.

His response will tell us. Stay tuned.


at one Time Canada and the USofA did have a open border, all you were required to have was a Dvr Lic and a reason.