# Would You Approve The REPEAL of The 2nd Amendment By Executive Order?



## caddo kid

This is a simple YES or NO poll

BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


----------



## caddo kid

I voted YES but why did I vote YES?

I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.

If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.

We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.


----------



## Hossfly

Not legal.


----------



## caddo kid

Hossfly said:


> Not legal.




What is,  "not legal?"


----------



## martybegan

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.



He's not trying to repeal it entirely, his probable point is the executive through an agency recognizes citizenship of babies born here to illegals, and he is seeing if he can stop the agency from having to do so. 

He will immediately be sued in a DC district court, an injunction will be passed, and the whole thing will go to the courts.

The more appropriate question is "would you support the repeal of 2nd amendment rights for illegal aliens by executive order"


----------



## EvilCat Breath

Trump never said s word about repealing anything.  it's just another democrat lie.


----------



## Oddball




----------



## ptbw forever

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.


He is not repealing the 14th amendment, moron.

The slaves and their descendants are still American citizens.


----------



## Weatherman2020

A week before the election Trump has the left screaming for more anchor babies. The man is a genius. I think the end game is to destroy the left through outrage exhaustion.


----------



## Hugo Furst

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.



Check the batteries in your hearing aid.

Trump has NOT said that


----------



## caddo kid

martybegan said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not trying to repeal it entirely, his probable point is the executive through an agency recognizes citizenship of babies born here to illegals, and he is seeing if he can stop the agency from having to do so.
> 
> He will immediately be sued in a DC district court, an injunction will be passed, and the whole thing will go to the courts.
> 
> The more appropriate question is "would you support the repeal of 2nd amendment rights for illegal aliens by executive order"
Click to expand...



So, please cite a single example of any POTUS repealing any 'part' of any Amendment via EO.

Also, if we extrapolate your thinking to a 2nd A scenario, would that be like allowing firearms but outlawing ammunition?


----------



## martybegan

caddo kid said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He's not trying to repeal it entirely, his probable point is the executive through an agency recognizes citizenship of babies born here to illegals, and he is seeing if he can stop the agency from having to do so.
> 
> He will immediately be sued in a DC district court, an injunction will be passed, and the whole thing will go to the courts.
> 
> The more appropriate question is "would you support the repeal of 2nd amendment rights for illegal aliens by executive order"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, please cite a single example of any POTUS repealing any 'part' of any Amendment via EO.
> 
> Also, if we extrapolate your thinking to a 2nd A scenario, would that be like allowing firearms but outlawing ammunition?
Click to expand...


No, it would actually be like I said, saying illegal aliens do not posses the right to keep and bear arms in the United States.


----------



## Hossfly

caddo kid said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
Click to expand...


Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.


----------



## candycorn

Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame


----------



## caddo kid

Hossfly said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
Click to expand...


Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went 

I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.

I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.

Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Trump: End birthright citizenship for some US-born babies


An illegal immigrant wants a U.S. birth certificate and citizenship for his/her kid born in the U.S.? Sure, it'll cost you $5,000,000.00. Fuck the liberal faggots and their faux concern about the Constitution all of a sudden.


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame



How is this duplicity?

This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.


----------



## Hugo Furst

caddo kid said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
Click to expand...



Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns,  (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?


----------



## caddo kid

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
Click to expand...



So, for thsake of debate, let's say Trump signs the EO, and SCOTUS eventually agrees.

In theory a precedent would be set & any future POTUS could just willie nillie sign any EO & remove any part of any Amendment, or outright repeal any Amendment.

Are you ready to go down that slippery slope? 
Is America ready for that?
Be careful what you wish for.


----------



## martybegan

caddo kid said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, for thsake of debate, let's say Trump signs the EO, and SCOTUS eventually agrees.
> 
> In theory a precedent would be set & any future POTUS could just willie nillie sign any EO & remove any part of any Amendment, or outright repeal any Amendment.
> 
> Are you ready to go down that slippery slope?
> Is America ready for that?
> Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS won't agree, because the courts, even Conservative ones will probably disagree with him.

To me this is up to the legislature, and they would have to narrowly craft the law to only exclude those born of people here illegally.

What Trump is doing is merely starting the process.

The thing is we don't know if it's "constitutional" or not, because the courts have never said anything about an EO telling agencies to not recognize the birthright citizenship of those born here illegally.


----------



## candycorn

caddo kid said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, for thsake of debate, let's say Trump signs the EO, and SCOTUS eventually agrees.
> 
> In theory a precedent would be set & any future POTUS could just willie nillie sign any EO & remove any part of any Amendment, or outright repeal any Amendment.
> 
> Are you ready to go down that slippery slope?
> Is America ready for that?
> Be careful what you wish for.
Click to expand...


Correct!


----------



## EGR one

caddo kid said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
Click to expand...


There has been a long standing legal argument over whether anchor babies are, or are not, covered by the 14th amendment.  Clearly, there was no intent to secure anchor babies through the amendment, but are they covered by default?

Trump's idea of an executive order would force the courts to make a decision on the matter.  The left would file numerous court cases on the executive order, and the Supreme Court would be forced to take the issue up.


----------



## PredFan

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks



Because you can’t over ride the Constitution with executive actions.

And don’t be stupid enough to argue that Trump is doing that with the 14th because the 14th was never meant to be used for children of illegals.


----------



## candycorn

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
Click to expand...


You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.


----------



## caddo kid

WillHaftawaite said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns,  (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?
Click to expand...



So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

You shouldn't  be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'


----------



## Weatherman2020

I can’t own a bazooka. 
I can’t yell fire in a theater. 
I must bake that cake.


----------



## Weatherman2020

candycorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
Click to expand...

Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.


----------



## Wyatt earp

I wonder how many people would lose their right to vote?

That would be funny as hell ..



.


----------



## martybegan

candycorn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
Click to expand...


Actually I have stated that this will probably get struck down, and should get struck down. EO's get used too much, but this one is only to get the Courts to do something. (and maybe congress too)

Now if congress made a strictly constructed law targeting only the children of illegals, I could see it passing muster.


----------



## caddo kid

EGR one said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been a long standing legal argument over whether anchor babies are, or are not, covered by the 14th amendment.  Clearly, there was no intent to secure anchor babies through the amendment, but are they covered by default?
> 
> Trump's idea of an executive order would force the courts to make a decision on the matter.  The left would file numerous court cases on the executive order, and _*the Supreme Court would be forced to take the issue up*_.
Click to expand...


SCOTUS has refused many cases put to them


----------



## Hugo Furst

caddo kid said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns,  (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?
> 
> You shouldn't  be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'
Click to expand...



and you should use a plunger on your ear, to get at least pat of the crap out of your head

IF Trump signs that EO, it will be forced into the courts to determine the legality if it.

You keep screaming 'REPEAL'.

no one has said that, and I doubt you know what it means.


----------



## martybegan

Weatherman2020 said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
Click to expand...


And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## caddo kid

WillHaftawaite said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns,  (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?
> 
> You shouldn't  be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and you should use a plunger on your ear, to get at least pat of the crap out of your head
> 
> IF Trump signs that EO, it will be forced into the courts to determine the legality if it.
> 
> You keep screaming 'REPEAL'.
> 
> no one has said that, and I doubt you know what it means.
Click to expand...


You replied to this: So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO _*to remove a part of an Amendment, *_or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?

I guess if I'm deaf then U R fvcking blind; OK.

AFA Trump potentially  signing the EO, YES, I know he would do it to force it to a court fight. Duh


----------



## Hugo Furst

caddo kid said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Taking your example of the Second, when the courts ruled against sawed off shotguns,  (US vs Miller), did that repeal the Second Amendment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO to remove a part of an Amendment, or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?
> 
> You shouldn't  be drinking so goddman early in the day bro'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and you should use a plunger on your ear, to get at least pat of the crap out of your head
> 
> IF Trump signs that EO, it will be forced into the courts to determine the legality if it.
> 
> You keep screaming 'REPEAL'.
> 
> no one has said that, and I doubt you know what it means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You replied to this: So, you wanna compare any POTUS signing an EO _*to remove a part of an Amendment, *_or to repeal an Amendment, to a SCOTUS case?
> 
> I guess if I'm deaf then U R fvcking blind; OK.
Click to expand...


If he signs the EO, it WILL become a SCOTUS case.

You cant see past the end of your nose, and accuse me of being blind?


----------



## Freiheit

The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.


----------



## flacaltenn

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.



Lemme spare your time here. You're gonna lose this mental masturbation. You can't repeal an Amendment with an E.O.  

However, the 14th Amendment was NEVER INTENDED to apply to illegal entries, visitors or even delegations of diplomats from foreign countries. The principle AUTHOR stated as much when it was offered. SPECIFICALLY, he said what I just told you.

Furthermore, it was in effect for close to 100 years UNTIL it was INTERPRETED by some activist judges to mean ANYONE born inside the borders. So -- it's up to the courts to review.

But you can't ignore the terms "all NATURALIZED people" in the actual words.

From Political Insider  ---
Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains It... Liberals Are FURIOUS! - The Political Insider


----------



## miketx

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.


Come get them traitor.


----------



## miketx

flacaltenn said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lemme spare your time here. You're gonna lose this mental masturbation. You can't repeal an Amendment with an E.O.
> 
> However, the 14th Amendment was NEVER INTENDED to apply to illegal entries, visitors or even delegations of diplomats from foreign countries. The principle AUTHOR stated as much when it was offered. SPECIFICALLY, he said what I just told you.
> 
> Furthermore, it was in effect for close to 100 years UNTIL it was INTERPRETED by some activist judges to mean ANYONE born inside the borders. So -- it's up to the courts to review.
> 
> But you can't ignore the terms "all NATURALIZED people" in the actual words.
> 
> From Political Insider  ---
> Man Who Wrote 14th Amendment Explains It... Liberals Are FURIOUS! - The Political Insider
Click to expand...

Liberals certainly can, and they do ignore facts, all the time. Now, to see them talk out of both sides of their mouths, and show their two faces, wait until this Mueller rape accusation gets going. 

As far as repealing the 2nd, I don't care let them. They will get a war one way or the other.


----------



## flacaltenn

martybegan said:


> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...


certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.


----------



## caddo kid

Freiheit said:


> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.




the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best


----------



## miketx

caddo kid said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
Click to expand...

We're stupid and this idiot doesn't know that you can't repeal an amendment by EO. lol


----------



## caddo kid

miketx said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're stupid and this idiot _*doesn't know that you can't repeal an amendment by EO*_. lol
Click to expand...



If you read what I stated within the thread, what you claim is NOT what I stated but I understand that your side is chock full of lying sacks of shit, just like you & Trump.


----------



## Freiheit

caddo kid said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
Click to expand...

A repeal of any amendment by executive order is impossible.  An executive order to repeal any part of the constitution or Bill of Rights is illegal, without standing.  Only the terminally stupid would ask such a question.


----------



## caddo kid

Freiheit said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A repeal of any amendment by executive order is impossible.  An executive order to repeal any part of the constitution or Bill of Rights is illegal, without standing.  Only the terminally stupid would ask such a question.
Click to expand...




That is EXACTLY why I posted the thread, Mr Brainiac. 

Did you see the other thread(s) earlier today in which members were discussing Trump's EO to exclude citizenship under the 14th A to folks born on US soil, with NON citizen parents?

They were ALL like YEAH BRO; GO TRUMP, YOU DA MAN.

By law it would take 2/3 of both the Senate & the House, and then 3/4 of the states.

But the TRUMP crowd were ALL creaming in their panties saying it was GREAT news. 

Did you actually take the thread serious, after reading my second post?
Oh, OK. You didn't read that.


----------



## OldLady

WillHaftawaite said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Check the batteries in your hearing aid.
> 
> Trump has NOT said that
Click to expand...

Will, Trump has said he is going to get rid of birthright citizenship by using an executive order.   That is expressly set forth in the 14th Amendment, Section1.
_All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws._


----------



## OldLady

martybegan said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have stated that this will probably get struck down, and should get struck down. EO's get used too much, but this one is only to get the Courts to do something. (and maybe congress too)
> 
> Now if congress made a strictly constructed law targeting only the children of illegals, I could see it passing muster.
Click to expand...

So how can Congress change the 14th without an Amendment, but the Pres can't change it with an EO?


----------



## Freiheit

caddo kid said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A repeal of any amendment by executive order is impossible.  An executive order to repeal any part of the constitution or Bill of Rights is illegal, without standing.  Only the terminally stupid would ask such a question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is EXACTLY why I posted the thread, Mr Brainiac.
> 
> Did you see the other thread(s) earlier today in which members were discussing Trump's EO to exclude citizenship under the 14th A to folks born on US soil, with NON citizen parents?
> 
> They were ALL like YEAH BRO; GO TRUMP, YOU DA MAN.
> 
> By law it would take 2/3 of both the Senate & the House, and then 3/4 of the states.
> 
> But the TRUMP crowd were ALL creaming in their panties saying it was GREAT news.
> 
> Did you actually take the thread serious, after reading my second post?
> Oh, OK. You didn't read that.
Click to expand...


I am stunned by the gross ignorance shown by people who have a supposed superior knowledge of govenment.  Perhaps I was just hoping.  Oh well.


----------



## Hugo Furst

caddo kid said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
Click to expand...




caddo kid said:


> posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best



and you shout yours from the rooftops.


----------



## Hugo Furst

OldLady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have stated that this will probably get struck down, and should get struck down. EO's get used too much, but this one is only to get the Courts to do something. (and maybe congress too)
> 
> Now if congress made a strictly constructed law targeting only the children of illegals, I could see it passing muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how can Congress change the 14th without an Amendment, but the Pres can't change it with an EO?
Click to expand...


How did they change the 1st, and the 2nd?


----------



## Weatherman2020

Trump is simply brilliant. One week before a major election he has the Left openly pushing for more anchor babies.


----------



## Manonthestreet

Would you like a Chinese President some day whose mom flew in just to have them  born here...


----------



## ElmerMudd

Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.

Way to go Donald.


----------



## kyzr

Wrong.  
Trump is correcting the interpretation of the 14th amendment, which will need to be reviewed by the Courts. 
Trump is NOT repealing the 14th.


----------



## chops_

Not sure where you are even getting this. But Trump is a proud NRA member. He may be trying to get rid of bump stock. But he isn't repealing the 14th Amendment. Nor even the 2nd Amendment. 
And Trump isn't _*anti-guns*_.


----------



## caddo kid

chops_ said:


> Not sure where you are even getting this. But Trump is a proud NRA member. He may be trying to get rid of bump stock. But he isn't repealing the 14th Amendment. Nor even the 2nd Amendment.
> And Trump isn't _*anti-guns*_.




Donald Duck Cheeto wouldn't even know how to shoot his penis, let alone a firearm.


----------



## caddo kid

WillHaftawaite said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the far right, conservative, GOP, right leaning, etc., posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> posts here do seem to imply stupidity, at best
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and you shout yours from the rooftops.
Click to expand...



and your DIVA voice rings from cock hole to ass hole


----------



## 80zephyr

Freiheit said:


> The 14th amendment is not in question.  A Supreme Court decision (United States v. Wong Kim Ark) is in question.  The ignorance of the posters in this thread is incredible.



No its not. Wong was a ruling concerning legal immigrants, not illegal immigrants. 

Mark


----------



## Natural Citizen

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.



The EO doesn't repeal the 14th because there is nothing in the 14th that gives children of illegal immigrants automatic birthright citizenship in the first place.

The 2nd, however, is crystal clear.

Your comparison isn't thought through very well.

There should be an option in your poll for irrelevant.


----------



## Natural Citizen

You can funny my thought on it all you want, caddo, but your comparison is still about as deep as a mud puddle.

There's some really undereducated and underinformed people on this board, I've noticed, on both theoretical sides.

I feel like I'm in grade school around here some times.


----------



## caddo kid

Natural Citizen said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The EO doesn't repeal the 14th because there is nothing in the 14th that gives children of illegal immigrants autmatic birthright citizenship in the forst place.
> 
> The 2nd, however, is crystal clear.
> 
> Your comparison isn't thought through very well.
> 
> There should be an ioption in your poll for irrelevant.
Click to expand...



the poll was not implemented as a serious function but rather as a rhetorical issue to see how many brain dead far righties there are here @ USMB. 
OBVIOUSLY, there are a lot more than even I imagined.


----------



## Wyatt earp

ElmerMudd said:


> Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
> When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.
> 
> Way to go Donald.




300 million plus guns in this country says otherwise..........



.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.



*I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.*

You're lying.


----------



## ElmerMudd

bear513 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
> When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.
> 
> Way to go Donald.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300 million plus guns in this country says otherwise..........
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

300+ million native born Americans say otherwise


----------



## caddo kid

Toddsterpatriot said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.*
> 
> You're lying.
Click to expand...



LOFL, a charade could bite you in your over inflated size, FAT ass, and you would never know it was fake


----------



## Darkwind

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.


You heard wrong.  Trump is NOT repealing the 14th amendment.  He has no such authority.  He is questioning the wrongful interpretation of the Amendment.

He already has the authority to deport the offspring of illegal aliens from our soil.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

caddo kid said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering repealing The 14th Amendment via EO.*
> 
> You're lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOFL, a charade could bite you in your over inflated size, FAT ass, and you would never know it was fake
Click to expand...


Liar says what?


----------



## peach174

The 14th Amendment says, “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, *AND* _subject to the jurisdiction thereof_, are citizens of the United States…”

It does not apply to illegals who give birth on U.S. soil.

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This does not, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. 

Anchor babies are not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## martybegan

flacaltenn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
Click to expand...


They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. 

The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.


----------



## martybegan

OldLady said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Great thread.  Shows the duplicity of the right wing in all its beautiful shame
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I have stated that this will probably get struck down, and should get struck down. EO's get used too much, but this one is only to get the Courts to do something. (and maybe congress too)
> 
> Now if congress made a strictly constructed law targeting only the children of illegals, I could see it passing muster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how can Congress change the 14th without an Amendment, but the Pres can't change it with an EO?
Click to expand...


Congress has the power to create law. To me a law would stand far stronger than an EO.

EO's have to have some basis in a law passed by congrress.


----------



## MisterBeale

Election year politicking.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

No Amendment may be "repealed" by an EO.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
Click to expand...


* If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *

Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *
> 
> Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?
Click to expand...


Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *
> 
> Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
Click to expand...


*Don't see how the draft comes into play,*

You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?

What about taxes?

If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *
> 
> Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't see how the draft comes into play,*
> 
> You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?
> 
> What about taxes?
> 
> If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?
Click to expand...


They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest. 

Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.


----------



## Frankeneinstein

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


How would you vote if they were bundled? i.e. would you approve of an EO that would repeal both?

"This is a simple YES or NO" question."

BUT please post an excuse for your tortured logic.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> * If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *
> 
> Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't see how the draft comes into play,*
> 
> You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?
> 
> What about taxes?
> 
> If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.
> 
> Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.
Click to expand...


*They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*

And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.

*Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *

You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *
> 
> Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't see how the draft comes into play,*
> 
> You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?
> 
> What about taxes?
> 
> If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.
> 
> Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*
> 
> And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.
> 
> *Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *
> 
> You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> * If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States. *
> 
> Really? Can we draft a foreign tourist into the US military?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Don't see how the draft comes into play,*
> 
> You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?
> 
> What about taxes?
> 
> If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.
> 
> Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*
> 
> And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.
> 
> *Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *
> 
> You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?
Click to expand...


Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't see how the draft comes into play, as if it ever got re-enacted only males 18-34 are bound by it, and women, children, and men over 34 are still subject to the Jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't see how the draft comes into play,*
> 
> You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?
> 
> What about taxes?
> 
> If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.
> 
> Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*
> 
> And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.
> 
> *Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *
> 
> You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.
Click to expand...


Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones. 

They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.


----------



## ElmerMudd

kyzr said:


> Wrong.
> Trump is correcting the interpretation of the 14th amendment, which will need to be reviewed by the Courts.
> Trump is NOT repealing the 14th.


The 14th amendment is straightforward. You are a Trump minion that cannot think for yourself.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't see how the draft comes into play,*
> 
> You don't see the difference between an 18 year old citizen subject to the draft and an 18 year old tourist who is not subject to the draft?
> 
> What about taxes?
> 
> If a British tourist comes here, and while on vacation, sells 1000 shares of Apple from his brokerage account back in London, how much capital gains tax can we charge him?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.
> 
> Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*
> 
> And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.
> 
> *Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *
> 
> You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.
> 
> They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.
Click to expand...

*Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*

Who said they were the only means? 

*They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*

Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government. That puts them legally under the jurisdiction of the US government at the Governments behest.
> 
> Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, that's the low hanging fruit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*
> 
> And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.
> 
> *Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *
> 
> You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.
> 
> They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*
> 
> Who said they were the only means?
> 
> *They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*
> 
> Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
Click to expand...


It probably does. 

They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.


----------



## ElmerMudd

chops_ said:


> Not sure where you are even getting this. But Trump is a proud NRA member. He may be trying to get rid of bump stock. But he isn't repealing the 14th Amendment. Nor even the 2nd Amendment.
> And Trump isn't _*anti-guns*_.


You better listen to the news, even Fox. Trump is threatening to overturn the 14th amendment by executive order.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *They arrived here legally and with the blessing of the US Government.*
> 
> And yet, don't pay capital gains taxes. Weird.
> 
> *Fight the fight to get children born from illegals off the citizenship wagon first, *
> 
> You bet. By properly interpreting the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.
> 
> They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*
> 
> Who said they were the only means?
> 
> *They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*
> 
> Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It probably does.
> 
> They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.
Click to expand...


*It probably does. *​​*They are here validly, at our invite. *​
If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​


----------



## MrShangles

caddo kid said:


> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hossfly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is,  "not legal?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know the procedure for repealing anything in the Constitution?  An EO can't do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, of course.  I tried to explain that very concept to a member here; they just went
> 
> I told them to repeal an Amendment would take 2/3 of both The House & The Senate, then 3/4 of states.
> 
> I don't see how any POTUS can repeal ANY part of ANY Amendment, period.
> 
> Anyone that knows of a precedent for this please post info.
Click to expand...


Y’all do understand he’s not repealing anything, he’s just gonna make the Supreme Court decide what the word under jurisdiction in that amendment means, because if you’re illegal maybe you’re not under jurisdiction. So the court will decide.
At least Trump is doing something about it to get the ball rolling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## ElmerMudd

bear513 said:


> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
> When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.
> 
> Way to go Donald.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300 million plus guns in this country says otherwise..........
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Government drones, cyber weapons and more will wipe out all the gun toting gun nuts that think they can battle the government with their arsenal in one day


----------



## ElmerMudd

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No Amendment may be "repealed" by an EO.


agreed


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what does capital gains taxes have to do with citizenship, and jurisdiction?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.
> 
> They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*
> 
> Who said they were the only means?
> 
> *They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*
> 
> Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It probably does.
> 
> They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It probably does. *
> 
> *They are here validly, at our invite. *
> 
> If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​
Click to expand...


Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction. 


The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

ElmerMudd said:


> bear513 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ElmerMudd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump paving the way for repeal of the 2nd amendment. Trump is setting the precedent of repealing a Constitutional amendment through an executive order by the POTUS.
> When an anti-gun President is elected, he then can repeal the 2nd amendment through executive order.
> 
> Way to go Donald.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 300 million plus guns in this country says otherwise..........
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Government drones, cyber weapons and more will wipe out all the gun toting gun nuts that think they can battle the government with their arsenal in one day
Click to expand...


Exactly.
That's why we won the war in Afghanistan so quickly. DURR......


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the fact that the foreigner owes the US Treasury no capital gains taxes and the fact that the 18 year old male tourist owes the US Selective Service no registration form shows that neither is subject to the Jurisdiction of the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.
> 
> They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*
> 
> Who said they were the only means?
> 
> *They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*
> 
> Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It probably does.
> 
> They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It probably does. *
> 
> *They are here validly, at our invite. *
> 
> If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.
Click to expand...


Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.

The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction, they aren't even valid ones.
> 
> They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.
> 
> 
> 
> *Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*
> 
> Who said they were the only means?
> 
> *They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*
> 
> Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It probably does.
> 
> They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It probably does. *
> 
> *They are here validly, at our invite. *
> 
> If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
> Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.
> 
> The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?
Click to expand...


That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Those aren't the only means of measuring jurisdiction,*
> 
> Who said they were the only means?
> 
> *They have an entry visa for the US issued by the Federal Government.*
> 
> Which doesn't mean they fit the definition, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It probably does.
> 
> They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *It probably does. *
> 
> *They are here validly, at our invite. *
> 
> If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
> Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.
> 
> The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.
Click to expand...


Clarify your view.

Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid 
documentation do convey US citizenship?


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> It probably does.
> 
> They are here validly, at our invite. If the writers of the 14th would have said "born to two US citizens or legal residents" they would have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It probably does. *
> 
> *They are here validly, at our invite. *
> 
> If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
> Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.
> 
> The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify your view.
> 
> Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
> documentation do convey US citizenship?
Click to expand...


Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It probably does. *
> 
> *They are here validly, at our invite. *
> 
> If it did, they'd be required to register for the draft and file tax returns for income earned overseas​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
> Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.
> 
> The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify your view.
> 
> Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
> documentation do convey US citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.
Click to expand...


Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?


----------



## flacaltenn

martybegan said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is this duplicity?
> 
> This will force the Courts to re-examine the issue with regards to illegals. The only settled question via the SC is via people here legally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
Click to expand...


If they buy a "birth tourism" package -- that might just be too obvious for the DHSecurity folks..  LOL...

I wanted to post the numbers for "birthing tourism" visits to USA and found this quote.. The article is a must read for anyone CONDONING this intentional fraud..  36,000 "birth tourists" a year. NOT COUNTING the ones that waltz across the border illegally.. 


Immigration Loophole: 'Birth Tourism' on Rise

*The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care.

"When determining if an individual will be allowed to enter the U.S., Customs and Border Protection officers take into consideration the date the child is due for delivery and the length of time the individual intends to stay in the U.S.," a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said.
Still, critics say the practice largely goes unchecked and exploits the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves.*


----------



## Faun

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


No. The president isn't a dictator who can modify the Constitution with a stroke of his/her pen.


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, those two things don't mean jurisdiction.
> 
> 
> The line is most easily set at those here legally vs. illegally.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
> Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.
> 
> The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify your view.
> 
> Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
> documentation do convey US citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
> Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?
Click to expand...


Diplomats reside on property that is often treated as the soil of their own country, and were actually a carved out exception of the previous SC ruling.


----------



## martybegan

flacaltenn said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Weatherman2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You’re okay with an EO that overturns one amendment but not another amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> Strawman. Amendment still exists. Former slaves are still US citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And children of naturalized citizens, and people with green cards, and people with valid tourist visas will probably still be citizens, because they legally placed themselves under the jurisdiction of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> certainly naturalized citizens and green cards because they are properly naturalized. But I doubt tourist visas would still qualify..  UK, Australia and about 4 others RECENTLY dropped this concept. But they were far behind most of Europe who NEVER had this concept of anchor babies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't have the 14th amendment. If you apply for a valid entry permit, you are under the "jurisdiction thereof" of the United States.
> 
> The ironic thing is it would probably be more constitutional to ban tourist visas to people more than 5 months pregnant than to deny their kid citizenship.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they buy a "birth tourism" package -- that might just be too obvious for the DHSecurity folks..  LOL...
> 
> I wanted to post the numbers for "birthing tourism" visits to USA and found this quote.. The article is a must read for anyone CONDONING this intentional fraud..  36,000 "birth tourists" a year. NOT COUNTING the ones that waltz across the border illegally..
> 
> 
> Immigration Loophole: 'Birth Tourism' on Rise
> 
> *The State Department and Department of Homeland Security have no specific regulations banning pregnant foreigners from entering the United States. But officials say they can and do turn away pregnant women with obvious designs on coming to the United States to take advantage of free medical care.
> 
> "When determining if an individual will be allowed to enter the U.S., Customs and Border Protection officers take into consideration the date the child is due for delivery and the length of time the individual intends to stay in the U.S.," a Department of Homeland Security spokesman said.
> Still, critics say the practice largely goes unchecked and exploits the true meaning of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enacted after the Civil War to grant citizenship to descendants of slaves.*
Click to expand...


Interesting read.

Of course the real fix is to modify the 14th...

Good luck with that.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

martybegan said:


> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either you're under jurisdiction or you aren't.
> Those two exceptions that I thought of in about 30 seconds suggest they aren't.
> 
> The Amendment doesn't say kind of under, or partially under, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clarify your view.
> 
> Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
> documentation do convey US citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
> Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomats reside on property that is often treated as the soil of their own country, and were actually a carved out exception of the previous SC ruling.
Click to expand...


Even their spouses?
Even the hospital where their children are delivered?


----------



## martybegan

Toddsterpatriot said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Toddsterpatriot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's up to the court to decide. Frankly my view of where the line is is far more defensible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clarify your view.
> 
> Illegal aliens giving birth here do not convey US citizenship but tourists with valid
> documentation do convey US citizenship?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because they are under the jurisdiction of the United States via a valid entry permit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Foreign diplomats are here with valid documents.
> Does the 14th Amendment make their US born children US citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Diplomats reside on property that is often treated as the soil of their own country, and were actually a carved out exception of the previous SC ruling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Even their spouses?
> Even the hospital where their children are delivered?
Click to expand...


The fact they are here on specific papers for specific reason (diplomacy) gives a carve out that is a recognized exception.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.


----------



## Conservative65

caddo kid said:


> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.



You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.


----------



## Conservative65

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
Click to expand...


Shouldn't the gun haters that pushed for infringement be the ones having the guts to knock on doors and trying to take them away?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Conservative65 said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Conservative65 said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the gun haters that pushed for infringement be the ones having the guts to knock on doors and trying to take them away?
Click to expand...

This is as ignorant as it is stupid.

No one is ‘pushing for infringement’ – whatever that’s supposed to mean.

And no one seeks to ‘take away’ guns.

Advocating for firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not ‘infringement’ until the Supreme Court strikes down a given firearm regulatory measure as being such.  

Laws enacted by our elected representatives are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, including firearm regulatory measures.


----------



## caddo kid

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...



The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.

The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.

Now, what was the 14th A about, again?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the gun haters that pushed for infringement be the ones having the guts to knock on doors and trying to take them away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is as ignorant as it is stupid.
> 
> No one is ‘pushing for infringement’ – whatever that’s supposed to mean.
> 
> And no one seeks to ‘take away’ guns.
> 
> Advocating for firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not ‘infringement’ until the Supreme Court strikes down a given firearm regulatory measure as being such.
> 
> Laws enacted by our elected representatives are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, including firearm regulatory measures.
Click to expand...

in·fringe
[inˈfrinj]
VERB
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
Any law that calls for the ban of certain firearms because they look "scary" is an infringement on the rights of law abiding citizens. The 2nd Amendment does not have any such clause that allows for bans.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
Click to expand...

No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.

Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

caddo kid said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.
> 
> The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.
> 
> Now, what was the 14th A about, again?
Click to expand...

The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.

Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
Click to expand...

Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.


----------



## Synthaholic

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


I voted yes to own the Cons.


----------



## Synthaholic

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
Click to expand...

The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.
> 
> The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.
> 
> Now, what was the 14th A about, again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.
> 
> Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
Click to expand...


You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?


----------



## Conservative65

Synthaholic said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.
Click to expand...


When can we expect you gun haters to start personally trying to take what you say gun owners shouldn't have?


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
Click to expand...


Not giving citizenship to someone who was born here as a direct result of a crime doesn't violate the Constitution.  However, you lefties want people who do that to be given something that was never the intent of those that wrote the amendment.   Maybe one of those illegals will Kate Steinle your family member.


----------



## Conservative65

caddo kid said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.
> 
> The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.
> 
> Now, what was the 14th A about, again?
Click to expand...


Then you admit it's being used for something those writing it didn't intend for it to be used.   

You would think Brown would have helped blacks perform better.  Why is the average IQ for black 85?  You do realize that's considered below average?


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the gun haters that pushed for infringement be the ones having the guts to knock on doors and trying to take them away?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is as ignorant as it is stupid.
> 
> No one is ‘pushing for infringement’ – whatever that’s supposed to mean.
> 
> And no one seeks to ‘take away’ guns.
> 
> Advocating for firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not ‘infringement’ until the Supreme Court strikes down a given firearm regulatory measure as being such.
> 
> Laws enacted by our elected representatives are presumed to be Constitutional until the Supreme Court rules otherwise, including firearm regulatory measures.
Click to expand...


That's right.   No one expected any of you gun haters to have the guts.   Just another pussy that talks a lot but runs when he has to personally back it up.


----------



## Conservative65

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
Click to expand...


Not when it's being used in a manner not intended by writers of it.   You do admit the Court is determining things outside of the intention.    Maybe one of those illegals you love so much will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.  You'd deserve it.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


First Amendment also needs to be repeated so we can live in a Progressive Utopia


----------



## Faun

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not giving citizenship to someone who was born here as a direct result of a crime doesn't violate the Constitution.  However, you lefties want people who do that to be given something that was never the intent of those that wrote the amendment.   Maybe one of those illegals will Kate Steinle your family member.
Click to expand...

The circumstances being criminal has nothing to do with anything. If it did, than an American woman giving birth in the U.S. to the baby of an American man who raped her would mean their baby is not a U.S. citizen.


----------



## Faun

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it's being used in a manner not intended by writers of it.   You do admit the Court is determining things outside of the intention.    Maybe one of those illegals you love so much will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.  You'd deserve it.
Click to expand...

It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.


----------



## Conservative65

Faun said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it's being used in a manner not intended by writers of it.   You do admit the Court is determining things outside of the intention.    Maybe one of those illegals you love so much will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.  You'd deserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.
Click to expand...


They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Tipsycatlover said:


> Trump never said s word about repealing anything.  it's just another democrat lie.




democrats = liars 

still holds true


----------



## Marion Morrison




----------



## Faun

Conservative65 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it's being used in a manner not intended by writers of it.   You do admit the Court is determining things outside of the intention.    Maybe one of those illegals you love so much will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.  You'd deserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
Click to expand...

Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.


----------



## Conservative65

Faun said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not when it's being used in a manner not intended by writers of it.   You do admit the Court is determining things outside of the intention.    Maybe one of those illegals you love so much will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.  You'd deserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.
Click to expand...


They couldn't have intended it to be used by a piece of shit kid of an illegal committing a crime.  If you could read on a level higher than 1st grade, you'd know the history and intention behind the 14th.   Since you can't, you'll never understand.


----------



## Faun

Conservative65 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not when it's being used in a manner not intended by writers of it.   You do admit the Court is determining things outside of the intention.    Maybe one of those illegals you love so much will Kate Steinle or Mollie Tibbetts your family member.  You'd deserve it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't have intended it to be used by a piece of shit kid of an illegal committing a crime.  If you could read on a level higher than 1st grade, you'd know the history and intention behind the 14th.   Since you can't, you'll never understand.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Spits the imbecile who can’t even understand 2 words... “all persons.”


----------



## Faun

Conservative65 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't have intended it to be used by a piece of shit kid of an illegal committing a crime.  If you could read on a level higher than 1st grade, you'd know the history and intention behind the 14th.   Since you can't, you'll never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Spits the imbecile who can’t even understand 2 words... “all persons.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spits the imbecile who thinks those writing the 14th has as their intention rewarding illegals.    Hope one of them Kate Steinle's your family member.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Moron.... “all persons.”


----------



## Conservative65

Faun said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They couldn't have intended it to be used by a piece of shit kid of an illegal committing a crime.  If you could read on a level higher than 1st grade, you'd know the history and intention behind the 14th.   Since you can't, you'll never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Spits the imbecile who can’t even understand 2 words... “all persons.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spits the imbecile who thinks those writing the 14th has as their intention rewarding illegals.    Hope one of them Kate Steinle's your family member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron.... “all persons.”
Click to expand...


You're still not understanding intent, BOY.   That's what having the same below average IQ of the typical black does for you.


----------



## Faun

Conservative65 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They couldn't have intended it to be used by a piece of shit kid of an illegal committing a crime.  If you could read on a level higher than 1st grade, you'd know the history and intention behind the 14th.   Since you can't, you'll never understand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Spits the imbecile who can’t even understand 2 words... “all persons.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spits the imbecile who thinks those writing the 14th has as their intention rewarding illegals.    Hope one of them Kate Steinle's your family member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Moron.... “all persons.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still not understanding intent, BOY.   That's what having the same below average IQ of the typical black does for you.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Why is it my fault you’re incapable of understanding two words? 

“All persons.”


----------



## Pilot1

Of course, I voted NO.  The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Synthaholic said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.
Click to expand...

That ignorant argument again and again. You people repeatedly ignore the comma and the rest of the Amendment. Subsequent writings by the framers of the Constitution confirm the individuals right to own firearms. Next tired ass argument.


----------



## DandyDonovan

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks




This entire thread is built on a false premise.


----------



## Deleted member 61768

I served in the U.S. Army and too many have died for those RIGHTS! NOT IN MY LIFETIME!!!!!


----------



## Deleted member 61768

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ignorant argument again and again. You people repeatedly ignore the comma and the rest of the Amendment. Subsequent writings by the framers of the Constitution confirm the individuals right to own firearms. Next tired ass argument.
Click to expand...


You obviously have a minimal understanding of American History; so much for your tired ass argument!


----------



## WinterBorn

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks



There is only one constitutionally acceptable way of repealing an amendment to the US Constitution.   And the chances of that are somewhere between very slim and none.

from:  What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center
"Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states."

The link above will also help you understand what is required to repeal a constitutional amendment.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Paparock said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That ignorant argument again and again. You people repeatedly ignore the comma and the rest of the Amendment. Subsequent writings by the framers of the Constitution confirm the individuals right to own firearms. Next tired ass argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You obviously have a minimal understanding of American History; so much for your tired ass argument!
Click to expand...

I can read you ignorant ass and the people who wrote the Constitution and created this country time and time again reinforced the rights of the individual to keep and bear arms. I can back up my words you can't.
NRA-ILA | America's Founding Fathers On The Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms


----------



## Deleted member 61768

I would have not used those exact words fellow Army Vet. however I feel you. My wife is the first woman to have commanded a full wing in the men's prison system in Colorado and my mother upon first meeting her told her as a child I took to guns like no one she has ever known. I practiced a minimum of 50 to 100 rounds a day from grade school. I know what my rights are as I have attended several colleges as well as universities. Why the U.S. Army even sent this country boy to Yale University. I know were I stand and where I draw the line.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
Click to expand...

It can be found here:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pilot1 said:


> Of course, I voted NO.  The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,


Wrong.

The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Conservative65 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted YES but why did I vote YES?
> 
> I voted YES because I heard that POTUS Trump is considering  repealing  The 14th Amendment via EO.
> 
> If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.
> 
> We would have no further need for Congress & everyone could quit bitching about Congress being useless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.
> 
> The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.
> 
> Now, what was the 14th A about, again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.
> 
> Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?
Click to expand...

No, the hypocrisy of the right when conservatives whine about “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” after the Supreme Court invalidates an un-Constitutional law conservatives support.

But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.


----------



## Freiheit

caddo kid said:


> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks


This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory.  The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order.  Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

WinterBorn said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one constitutionally acceptable way of repealing an amendment to the US Constitution.   And the chances of that are somewhere between very slim and none.
> 
> from:  What does it take to repeal a constitutional amendment? - National Constitution Center
> "Changing the actual words of the Constitution does take an amendment, as does actually deleting, or repealing, an amendment. Including the first 10 amendments, the Bill of Rights, which were ratified in 1789, the Senate historian estimates that approximately 11,699 amendment changes have been proposed in Congress through 2016. Only one amendment, the 18th Amendment that established Prohibition, was later repealed by the states."
> 
> The link above will also help you understand what is required to repeal a constitutional amendment.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment isn’t going to be ‘repealed,’ of course – the notion is idiocy.

Second Amendment jurisprudence is in its infancy, it will continue to evolve, new measures will be enacted, reviewed by the courts, some will be upheld, others invalidated, eventually the Supreme Court will weigh in.

In time we’ll have a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment – perhaps within the next 50 years – as to what regulatory measures the states may enact, what measures they may not.


----------



## Karl Rand

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In time we’ll have a comprehensive understanding of the meaning of the Second Amendment – perhaps within the next 50 years – as to what regulatory measures the states may enact, what measures they may not.


50 years? Putin will have induced the second civil war before then.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Freiheit said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory.  The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order.  Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
> The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.
Click to expand...

Trump is just as stupid – believing he can ‘repeal’ the Citizenship Cause of the 14th Amendment via EO.


----------



## Karl Rand

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Freiheit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory.  The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order.  Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
> The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump is just as stupid – believing he can ‘repeal’ the Citizenship Cause of the 14th Amendment via EO.
Click to expand...

We can only hope he continues with his arrogant stupidity. He’s providing the fuel for eventual impeachment.


----------



## Pilot1

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.



The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.  So, unfortunately for you, they agree with most Americans.


----------



## Toddsterpatriot

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You heard wrong about the 14th.    The 14th has been grossly misused to do something that anyone with an ounce of historical understanding knows it wasn't intended to do.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.
> 
> The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.
> 
> Now, what was the 14th A about, again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.
> 
> Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the hypocrisy of the right when conservatives whine about “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” after the Supreme Court invalidates an un-Constitutional law conservatives support.
> 
> But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.
Click to expand...


*But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window. *

Exactly!
That's why you'd be okay with a state law infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
Or if a state passed a law allowing unreasonable searches and seizures.


----------



## Pilot1

Toddsterpatriot said:


> *But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window. *
> 
> Exactly!
> That's why you'd be okay with a state law infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
> Or if a state passed a law allowing unreasonable searches and seizures.



All the states, when they became states agreed to the terms of the Constitution.  I am a huge state's right proponent.  However, the states knew about the 2A going into it, and signed off on the Federal guarantee of non infringement on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

IT IS NOT A STATE"S RIGHTS ISSUE.  Read the Constitution.  Is Free Speech a state's rights issue?  Can your state curtail the First Amendment?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be found here:
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Click to expand...

Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I voted NO.  The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.
Click to expand...

You have a serious comprehension problem. The intentions of the framers were very clear about an individuals right to bear arms in both the Constitution and subsequent writings.

“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
– Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


----------



## progressive hunter

one problem with the question is that it cant be done by EO


----------



## caddo kid

Freiheit said:


> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> This is possibly the most stupid question asked in my memory.  The constitution cannot be repealed or changed by executive order.  Mr. Lincoln tried that and found he had no power to do so.
> The power of fantasy over the terminally stupid is mind boggling.
Click to expand...



Yes, Lincoln WAS terminally stupid, and he paid a big price for his stupidity.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a simple YES or NO poll
> 
> BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be found here:
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.
Click to expand...

As determined by the courts.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
> 
> 
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be found here:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As determined by the courts.
Click to expand...

that is a progressive view of the 2nd amendment as I have ever read


what youre saying is the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can regulate how when and where we are allowed guns,,,

sorry thats just wrong

you are entitled to your opinion just dont claim to be an original intent supporter of the 2nd amendment


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Toddsterpatriot said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddo kid said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The 14th Amendment has been ‘used’ exactly as its Framers intended, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Supreme Court alone determines what the Constitution means, including the 14th Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th A may have been for a 'reason' but it opened the gates for many other issues to follow.
> 
> The 14th introduced AmeriKKKa to Brown v. Board of Education,  Loving v. Virginia, and gay marriage, among others.
> 
> Now, what was the 14th A about, again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th Amendment, of course, is yet another example of rightwing hypocrisy, yet another example of how inconsistent most conservatives are.
> 
> Conservatives weren’t whining about the 14th Amendment when it was used to incorporate the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You mean like the hypocrisy of the left who wants to read the 14th word for word yet ignore the phrase "shall not be infringed" when it comes to all sorts of laws infringing the 2nd?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the hypocrisy of the right when conservatives whine about “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” after the Supreme Court invalidates an un-Constitutional law conservatives support.
> 
> But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *But when a state enacts a firearm regulatory measure conservatives oppose, they sprint to the nearest Federal court to file suit – conservatives throw “states’ rights” and the “will of the people” out of the window. *
> 
> Exactly!
> That's why you'd be okay with a state law infringing on your 1st Amendment rights.
> Or if a state passed a law allowing unreasonable searches and seizures.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

I oppose any law enacted that violates the Constitution; regardless the ‘will of the people’; unlike inconsistent conservatives who whine about the ‘will of the people’ when the courts invalidate a law they support – such as a measure prohibiting same-sex marriage.

But when the people enact a law conservatives don’t like, they couldn’t care less about the ‘will of the people’ and seek to overturn the law in court.

Conservatives can’t have it both ways.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Pilot1 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Supreme Court has ruled the 2nd Amendment is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT.  So, unfortunately for you, they agree with most Americans.
Click to expand...

You’re not paying attention – you’ve missed my posts where I cited _Heller_, recognizing the Second Amendment right as an individual right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I voted NO.  The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a serious comprehension problem. The intentions of the framers were very clear about an individuals right to bear arms in both the Constitution and subsequent writings.
> 
> “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
> – Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
Click to expand...

Actually, you have an ignorance of the law problem.

_This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._ Article VI, US Cont.

The Supremacy Clause means that the Constitution is the law of the land, that the courts determine what the Constitution means, and that the states and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution and rulings of the courts.

The Supremacy Clause codifies the interpretive authority of the courts, that those rulings are binding precedent, and that the Supreme Court makes the final decision as to the Constitution’s meaning.  

Consequently, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’

When the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on firearms, the force and authority of that decision is the same as when the Amendment was ratified.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

progressive hunter said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, “shall not infringe” is specific only to the case law that determines the constitutionality of firearm regulatory measures; that’s why we have the courts – and ultimately the Supreme Court – to determine what is or is not ‘infringement.’
> 
> The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute’ – it is not a right to keep and carry any type of gun in any manner for any purpose; the Second Amendment right is subject to limitations, restrictions, and regulation; and government has the authority to regulate firearms provided that regulation is consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence, as determined by the courts.
> 
> Magazine capacity restrictions, background checks, waiting periods, and licensing requirements are examples of Constitutional firearm regulatory policy – policy that in no way ‘infringes’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> 
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It can be found here:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As determined by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a progressive view of the 2nd amendment as I have ever read
> 
> 
> what youre saying is the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can regulate how when and where we are allowed guns,,,
> 
> sorry thats just wrong
> 
> you are entitled to your opinion just dont claim to be an original intent supporter of the 2nd amendment
Click to expand...

lol

Didn’t think anyone would refer to Scalia as ‘progressive.’

I’m not ‘saying’ anything.

I’m simply citing _Heller/McDonald_ – current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the only opinion that matters or counts.

If you don’t like it or agree with it dig up Scalia an argue with him about it.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, I voted NO.  The Constitution matters, even though the courts have abused it in many ways by allowing political bias to make rulings that are not legally consistent with what the Constitution says,
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The courts determine what the Constitution means – ultimately the Supreme Court.
> 
> The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, and as originally intended by the Framers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a serious comprehension problem. The intentions of the framers were very clear about an individuals right to bear arms in both the Constitution and subsequent writings.
> 
> “The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
> – Thomas Jefferson, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, you have an ignorance of the law problem.
> 
> _This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding._ Article VI, US Cont.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause means that the Constitution is the law of the land, that the courts determine what the Constitution means, and that the states and local jurisdictions are subject to the Constitution and rulings of the courts.
> 
> The Supremacy Clause codifies the interpretive authority of the courts, that those rulings are binding precedent, and that the Supreme Court makes the final decision as to the Constitution’s meaning.
> 
> Consequently, the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
> 
> “But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument.’
> 
> When the _Heller_ Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ that government has the authority to place regulations and restrictions on firearms, the force and authority of that decision is the same as when the Amendment was ratified.
Click to expand...

Shal not be infringed its as simple as that. When Trump puts a couple more Conservatives on the Court and they follow the Constitution I bet you will change you fucking tune.


----------



## progressive hunter

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.
> 
> 
> 
> It can be found here:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shall not be infringed is specific in its meaning.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As determined by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that is a progressive view of the 2nd amendment as I have ever read
> 
> 
> what youre saying is the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can regulate how when and where we are allowed guns,,,
> 
> sorry thats just wrong
> 
> you are entitled to your opinion just dont claim to be an original intent supporter of the 2nd amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol
> 
> Didn’t think anyone would refer to Scalia as ‘progressive.’
> 
> I’m not ‘saying’ anything.
> 
> I’m simply citing _Heller/McDonald_ – current Second Amendment jurisprudence, the only opinion that matters or counts.
> 
> If you don’t like it or agree with it dig up Scalia an argue with him about it.
Click to expand...




sadly clayton you have been brainwashed with the progressive idea that SCOTUS can make law, or that the 2nd amendment is even a law

the 2nd is a right that cant be taken, and infringement is just that, there are no different levels of it

as for case law, well thats the progressive influence on the courts that has slowly destroyed this country,

again if I take it as you say that would mean the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against can at anytime take it away ,,,

I CALL BULLSHT!!!


----------



## Pellinore

Nope.  A President can't remove a Constitutional Amendment with an EO.  I shudder to think of what wreckage would become of the Constitution if they could.

Come back when you have support in both houses of Congress and 38 state legislatures ready to back it up.  Then we'll talk.


----------

