the 14th Amendment and Birthright Citizenship

[kalimgoodman]

90% of that fear is from gun nuts latched on to 'shall not be infringed'. They would be basket cases if the 2nd was being revisited.

There is A LOT of truth in this statement....

 

[LordofallSocks]

There is A LOT of truth in this statement....

No there isn't you're just both wrong.

 

[kalimgoodman]

I won't even pretend to claim I understand the constitutionality of anchor babies, but it needs to end now. It's not like it helps the USA, and that means any race, creed, or color of US citizens.

I agree that it needs to change...

 

[kalimgoodman]

No there isn't you're just both wrong.

You don't think that people would fight updating the constitution including the 2nd amendment?

 

[treygator29]

There is A LOT of truth in this statement....

It’s been revisited many times and recent

DC vs Heller 2008: SC ruled 2nd amendment covers a persons right to self defense

McDonald vs Chicago 2010: 2nd amendment applies to state and local

Caetano vs Massachusetts 2016: applies to all instruments that can be used as bearable arms and not just those written around the time the Constitution was written.

Notice how each time the suit is originated in an area that historically infringes on people’s 2nd Amendment rights and each time the SC sided with the original interpretation of the amendment.

 

[kalimgoodman]

It’s been revisited many times and recent

DC vs Heller 2008: SC ruled 2nd amendment covers a persons right to self defense

McDonald vs Chicago 2010: 2nd amendment applies to state and local

Caetano vs Massachusetts 2016: applies to all instruments that can be used as bearable arms and not just those written around the time the Constitution was written.

Notice how each time the suit is originated in an area that historically infringes on people’s 2nd Amendment rights and each time the SC sided with the original interpretation of the amendment.

Naw, I am not talking about 2 people reading the language and trying to decipher what it is saying. I am talking about people rewriting the constitution into plain English, in which you DON'T need the courts to decide what they "meant". All of those rulings had clear dissents.

 

[treygator29]

Naw, I am not talking about 2 people reading the language and trying to decipher what it is saying. I am talking about people rewriting the constitution into plain English, in which you DON'T need the courts to decide what they "meant". All of those rulings had clear dissents.

Changing the vernacular doesn’t change the content. It’s just saying the same thing in different words

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

90% of that fear is from gun nuts latched on to 'shall not be infringed'. They would be basket cases if the 2nd was being revisited.

How would you react if the 2nd Amendment was revisited in a way that enhanced gun rights?

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

Changing the vernacular doesn’t change the content. It’s just saying the same thing in different words

If we gotta change the wording of the Constitution so that libs like @kalimgoodman understand it, we are gonna be here a while.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

If we gotta change the wording of the Constitution so that libs like @kalimgoodman understand it, we are gonna be here a while.

I blocked him because he wastes my time, and is not smart enough to bring anything to me. But I would ask him what "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means to him.

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

I blocked him because he wastes my time, and is not smart enough to bring anything to me. But I would ask him what "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" means to him.

I blocked him a couple years ago, but so many people kept replying to him that I had to take him back off.

Trolls know that intentionally lying will always spark responses. It's why they do it.

 

[LordofallSocks]

You don't think that people would fight updating the constitution including the 2nd amendment?

There's nothing wrong with the language, both you and Theo are completely irrational on this particular topic.

 

[kalimgoodman]

There's nothing wrong with the language, both you and Theo are completely irrational on this particular topic.

There clearly are issues with the language because when the courts read it, they all have different opinions on it. As always you only see the world through your eyes. Even the people that agree, agree differently. We are not getting 9-0 decisions on 2nd amendment issues...

 

[GhostOfMatchesMalone]

There clearly are issues with the language because when the courts read it, they all have different opinions on it. As always you only see the world through your eyes. Even the people that agree, agree differently. We are not getting 9-0 decisions on 2nd amendment issues...

Hey brother, how are you reading this post if you have me on Ignore?

 

[LordofallSocks]

There clearly are issues with the language because when the courts read it, they all have different opinions on it. As always you only see the world through your eyes. Even the people that agree, agree differently. We are not getting 9-0 decisions on 2nd amendment issues...

That's because those dissenters are wrong.

 

[LordofallSocks]

Hey brother, how are you reading this post if you have me on Ignore?

He's responding to me?

Man, I did not miss you.