There are enough records, of enough writings and quotes, from the great men who wrote our Constitution,and who wrote the Bill of Rights, to know exactly what their intent was regarding the Second Amendment, and it is in perfect line with what the Second Amendment actually says. The right to keep and bear arms does not belong to the states, and it does not belong to the federal government; it belongs to the people, and government is forbidden from infringing this right. The only ones trying to play any games, to cast any doubt on what the Second Amendment means,and what its authors intended it to mean, are those who disagree with what it clearly states, and with what the men involved in writing and ratifying it clearly said.—people who want to usurp, on behalf of government, the authority that it clearly does not legitimately have, to infringe a right which it is clearly forbidden from infringing.
Point out to me where in their writings the Founders thought THESE GUYS having military grade weapons to shoot up schools, theaters, shopping malls, concerts, etc. was a good idea?
Here's the reality. In the founders time, most people didn't own guns. They were too expensive and not terribly useful. Long Muskets were only effective when used in volley, hence the term "Well-regulated militia" being in the Amendment. We didn't have a lot of guns when the War of Independence Started, we had to get them from the French, who bankrupted themselves providing them.
Alas, the Fourteenth Amendment is less clear cut. It is a case where we have sufficient records to know what the intent was, but the wording of the Amendment itself is too easily read away from that intent. The letter and the spirit of this Amendment don't match. There was discussion, at the time the Fourteenth was under consideration, of whether it would allow children born here of foreign parents, particularly those not legally here, to claim citizenship, and it was made clear that it was not the intent that it should.
Except that's the way it has been interpreted for 150 years. (Unlike the Second Amendment, which only was interpreted as "any nut has a right to a gun" since 2010). In fact, it only became "controversial" when a few racists got upset that children born here weren't as white as they used to be.
And I agree that it's a dangerous game to play, to let this or any other part of the Constitution be “interpreted” away from what it clearly says, on the basis that it can be claimed that the intent is more in line with that interpretation than the clear wording of the Amendment.
As written, it is difficult to argue that the letter of the Fourteenth Amendment doesn't grant citizenship to all children born here, regardless of the citizenship or legal status of their parents. The only solid remedy would be to ratify a new amendment, which clarifies who is and is not a citizen, based on criteria other than merely having been born here.
Or we can just leave it as it is and find other sensible solutions to the immigration problem.
You see, ironically, you racists have created this problem.
Used to be, migrant workers would come here, work for a few months, and go home. Wasn't a problem, Americans didn't want to pick lettuce or do the other scrub work.
Then you all insisted that we make it harder to get here.. so they figured, Meh, as long as I have to go, might as well go for good and bring the family along!
We could solve the problem of illegal immigration very easily by merely instituting a "Guest Worker" program to provide labor when needed, and strictly enforce workplace compliance. But the same wealthy interests that keep you angry really want the cheap labor. It just doesn't want the cheap labor to complain about wages or working conditions... that shit costs them money.
Must be tough to go through life with so much misdirected Anger, Mormon Bob.
I hire and fire dickheads exactly of your stripe. Don't let that burn your ass too hard. The only thing you 'real Americans' ever seem to have 'got' is an inferiority complex. Yawn.
