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

[martybegan]

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?

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

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

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.

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

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

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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]

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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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

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.

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]

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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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.

 

[Synthaholic]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

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

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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.

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]

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.

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?

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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