Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
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.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.’No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.This is a simple YES or NO poll
BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
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.
It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.Wrong.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If Trump is successful, then I believe ALL Amendments should be repealed by EO, including the 2nd A.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.
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.Wrong.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.
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.
Trump never said s word about repealing anything. it's just another democrat lie.
Sure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.Wrong.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.
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.
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.It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.Wrong.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.
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.
They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
LOLSure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.It’s being applied just as the writers of the Amendment intended.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.
They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
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.
LOLOLLOLSure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.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.
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.
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.
LOLOLLOLSure they did. “All persons” includes those who commit crimes.They didn't intend it to be used to allow the little shithead kid of an illegal to gain citizenship due to a crime.
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.
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.
Moron.... “all persons.”
LOLLOLOLLOLSure 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.
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.
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.
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.The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.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.’No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.This is a simple YES or NO poll
BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
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.
This is a simple YES or NO poll
BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
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.The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.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.’No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.This is a simple YES or NO poll
BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
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.
This is a simple YES or NO poll
BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
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.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.The 2nd is only for militias, which were our Army of the day.Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.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.’No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.
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.
You obviously have a minimal understanding of American History; so much for your tired ass argument!
It can be found here:Show the part of the 2nd Amendment that mentions regulations and or limits.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.’No because shall not infringe is pretty specific and a lot of people would die when the Government tried to enforce it.This is a simple YES or NO poll
BUT please post a reasoning to the vote you cast in the poll. Thanks
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.
