"out of context" defines your whole post. you brought guns up, dimwit. you are deflecting to yet another topic that you will get your ass kicked on by anyone with an IQ above 80.
ForReal, Trump Could Enforce the Border Without Locking Up Families
[...]
There were several problems with this argument. For one thing, U.S. law provides migrants with a right to seek asylum in the United States — and multiple reports indicate that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents had been denying them that right .. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/6/5/17428640/border-families-asylum-illegal .. when they sought to assert it at official points of entry. If those reports are true, then the administration’s border enforcement policies do not uphold law-and-order, but violate it; and migrants would be well within their rights to evade such lawlessness by crossing the border between official points of entry (in fact, under international law, refugees can cross borders illegally without forfeiting their right to seek asylum, no matter the circumstances).
[ Your - "No one has the right to illegally cross a country's border." ]
[...]
In other contexts, the Trump administration has little trouble understanding the difference between leniency and lawlessness: Even as White House officials have demanded pretrial incarceration for migrant families who commit misdemeanors, they have defended Paul Manafort’s right to rest in the comfort of his home ..
.. while he awaits trial for a wide variety of felonies.
"Yes. But, an "organized militia" under control of the government to assure states rights."
You just make shit up, don't you?
I'm aware of what the Constitution says on the subject of militias. I don't recall states rights being part of it
I thought states rights was more about raising people for farm animals.
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
This is something I've posted before, but I don't have search capability
so here's the text:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So who and what is a militia? As it turns out the constitution is hardly silent on that. (you can google the specifics - I wrote this part some time ago)
Consider this: The second amendment was written at a time when the founders feared the overreach of standing armies and for the common defense relied on militias It seems a lot of ignorant yahoos want their unfettered rights to lethal power, but they want none of the responsibilities that originally came with that.
Militia: During early American history, all males who were between the ages of sixteen to sixty were required to be a part of the local militia in their towns and communities. Almost everyone during this time used and owned guns. The few men who did not use or own a gun were required by law to pay a small fee instead of participating in the military services of their communities. These militias defended the communities against Indian raids and revolved, acted as a police force when it was needed, and was also available to be called upon to defense either the State or of the United States of America if it was needed.
…To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
…To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
…To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.