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

[Faun]

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.

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]

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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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

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

 

[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.

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.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

democrats = liars

still holds true

 

[Marion Morrison]

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

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

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

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.

LOL

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

 

[Faun]

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.

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.

LOL

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

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.

LOLOL

Moron.... “all persons.”

 

[Conservative65]

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.

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.

LOL

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

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.

LOLOL

Moron.... “all persons.”

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

 

[Faun]

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.

LOL

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

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.

LOLOL

Moron.... “all persons.”

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

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

 

[WinterBorn]

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]

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.

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.

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

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]

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.

It can be found here:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER