We should limit gun ownership

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
>and
Being born in the US satisfies only one half of that equation. It doesn't say
>All persons born in the United States, thus subject to the jurisdiction thereof

Nothing hypocritical about it. Constitutional original-ism implies unlimited gunrights, and it also implies that we get rid of birthright citizenship for foreigners.

can you name some other countries that allow any random illegal alien to poop out new citizens at a whim?

axios.com/trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-0cf4285a-16c6-48f2-a933-bd71fd72ea82.html

But some conservatives have argued that the 14th Amendment was only intended to provide citizenship to children born in the U.S. to lawful permanent residents — not to unauthorized immigrants or those on temporary visas.
John Eastman, a constitutional scholar and director of Chapman University's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence, told "Axios on HBO" that the Constitution has been misapplied over the past 40 or so years. He says the line "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" refers to people with full, political allegiance to the U.S. — such as green card holders and citizens.
Michael Anton, a former national security official in the Trump administration, recently took up this argument in the Washington Post.

Anton said that Trump could, via executive order, "specify to federal agencies that the children of noncitizens are not citizens" simply because they were born on U.S. soil. (It’s not yet clear whether Trump will take this maximalist argument, though his previous rhetoric suggests there’s a good chance.)
But others — such as Judge James C. Ho, who was appointed by Trump to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in New Orleans — say the line in the amendment refers to the legal obligation to follow U.S. laws, which applies to all foreign visitors (except diplomats) and immigrants. He has written that changing how the 14th Amendment is applied would be "unconstitutional."
Between the lines: Until the 1960s, the 14th Amendment was never applied to undocumented or temporary immigrants, Eastman said.

the second ammendment was "interpreted" to not apply to convicted felons, this was fine.

interpreting the 14th ammendment to not apply to illegal aliens would be the same type of interpretation. Not saying it is automatic, but it would have a 50/50 chance of passing in scotus

>We should amend the constitution to get rid of guns
>Hell yeah, Feinstein is BASED, change the Constitution!
>We should limit citizenship
>UH, NO, THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT, MUH RIGHTS, DON'T CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION
Why are left wingers such blatant hypocrites?

Attached: 1540878935213.png (500x394, 159K)

because they dont care about consistency just "winning", they're basically jews : the political ideology

>was intended
You can use this argument to rationalize anything you want
>the founding fathers didn’t intend the average citizen to own machine guns, semi autos, or guns with the same ROF as modern weaponry, so we should be allowed to either ban those or heavily limit their sale

>Why are right wingers such blatant hypocrites?
Somewhere along the line they managed to convince themselves that their autism actually makes them "superior," and thus not beholden to "mortal laws."

It's the same mental retardation that enables "sovereign citizens."

Attached: 1297069872451.png (508x412, 235K)

But where does it say this, citizens should legally be allowed to own any gun the military uses based off the 2nd

>we should amend the constitution
Nobody has said that you idiot. Anchor baby citizenship with illegal immigrants has never once been established by Supreme Court precedent as protected by the 14th Amendment.

Because the second amendment, people will fight to the death over and possibly start a war.

Who's going to fight for the spics? Lefties will cry and protest and that's it. Gun owners will kill cops.

You're subject to the laws and taxes of the United States so long as you live here.

The amendment was meant to give citizenship to freed slaves. Those slaves did not have citizen parents. But, living in the United States, they were subject to the laws of the United States, and their children are citizens because they're born here.

The 2nd was also "reinterpreted" to mean "the individual right to own guns" which it had not been for many years.
There's no doubt that the Constitution can and should be reinterpreted over time.

But The President cannot and should not be able to change the Constitution with an Executive Order.
What happens when another Obama gets in Office and goes crazy with EOs?

>Somewhere along the line they managed to convince themselves that their autism actually makes them "superior," and thus not beholden to "mortal laws."
Always accuse them of what you’re guilty of I guess. Conservatives aren’t the ones trying to ban amendments to the constitution

>was intended
>You can use this argument to rationalize anything you want
Inferring historical intention is almost the entire point of having a judicial branch. That's a ridiculous thing to complain about. Go read some Supreme Court cases.

>Conservatives
>trying to affect radical change
You aren't "conservative", you just hate the constitution. The same way you hate fair voting and states rights to things like marijuana.

Whoever defends the 2nd amendment by simply saying that it's the constitution is a complete moron.
The 2nd amendment is way deeper than that.

when the amendment was first introduced the people who introduced it explicitly said it didn't include immigrants. There was a reinterpretation when the supreme court was liberal and now it's going back to what it was for years.

We are in a civil war. No one is going to surrender their guns.

The 14th was meant to free the slaves not to give every goblina that crosses the border the ability to make a fucking anchor baby

he is, may allah forgive me for uttering this word, a libertarian.

Hai dipshit, amendment 2 cites the need for 'well regulated militia' as the reason to bear arms. It doesn't say 'every asshole should have a gun under their pillow'. Could guns not be stored in a barracks until militias are required?

We have a right to a well regulated militia and the right to bear arms

Is the term 'arms' defined in the Constitution?

No so all weaponry should be legal

You don't have the right to well regulated militia, they are cited as being 'necessary'......300 years ago.

>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
All persons born are citizens, if subject to the jurisdiction of the US

>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Means what it says.

Even biological weapons? Face it, the Constitution is inadequate.

If a man has the ability to store a nuclear weapon we have no right to tell him no. In america you can own a working tank or jet. All of this sounds like you're just a salty ass blasted Bong who wants everyone to suffer because you do. If the military has it the American people should too. Blow it out your ass comie.

The right to bear arms is predicated on militias being 'necessary to the security of a free state'. I don't think this is true any more.

It's an executive order to interpret the 14th amendment in a specific way, not to amend the constitution you drooling mong. Why don't you read the fucking comments from the actual fucking senators who passed the fucking thing, they were very clear that if you're born in the United States but your parents owe allegiance to another nation (in this case "Indian" tribes) then you don't get citizenship as a birthright.

memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llcg&fileName=073/llcg073.db&recNum=14

Uhhhhhhhhmmm what the fuck? So if a person starts to stockpile anthrax, that's a-ok with you? Damn son, that's some strong koolaid you're drinking.

>interpreting it correctly
Of course. It's ok when WE do it.

Attached: 1526833744340.jpg (402x536, 14K)

Also, communists defeated the Nazis... Soooo there's that.

Guns = good
Migrants = bad
What is it you don't understand?

The 14A leaves more room for misinterpretation than SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It's not amending, you retarded faggot. It's using it in the original context, which isn't fucking illegals. Now kys for being the stupidest and gayest faggot on the internet

The 14th Amendment was never intended for beaners to shit-out infinity anchor babies.

The left just started interpreting it that way, and got 6 gorillian Jewish lawyers to meme it into reality.

Stefan Molyneux explains it:
youtube.com/watch?v=UZyqQn2Uoo8

Attached: 1518334384722.gif (300x300, 482K)

...

>and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
Does not mean what you think it means.
You are applying colloquial usage to historical texts.

Projecting

Liberals are the hypocrites. And everyone knows it.

It is. One of us wants to interpret the constitution as it was intended, the other wants to interpret it in a progressive Marxist context. It's a false equivalence that should be beneath everyone's intelligence. Fuck off.

Attached: 1532445209023.jpg (960x1200, 202K)

EO forces the scotus to take a position as the courts will respond to the order. With Trumps nominees like the prolific rapist Kavanaugh do you really think they will side with illegals?

Cocksucker cant manage to run shit without editing and nerfing the constitution. I hope he dies of old age

Seriously, I don't know why these neo Marxists have such a hard time with "shall not be infringed" and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof". Simple words with straightforward meaning, and yet they remain confused.

Here is a simplified version of amendment 2:

"Because we need militias, we need guns"

Do you need militias?

>Liberals try to reinterpret 2nd Amendment to ban people from owning guns
>arguments have no basis in the historical intentions for the amendment, actually violates the spirit of the amendment, no basis in reality

>conservatives try to reinterpret 14th amendment to remove birthright citizenship from the children of illegal aliens
>argument based on the intentions and reasoning that the amendment framers used when crafting the language of the amendment, solves an issue without violating the rights of actual citizens

And for a small bonus:
>Liberals use interpretation of 14th amendment pulled out of the fucking void to force/justify making abortion legal, when actual abortion legislation was in the wings in states that wasn't justified on the shakiest grounds known to man.

Yes. It's codified in US Code that all adulthood citizens are members of said militia.

Yes. Next question.

More like, "because we are Americans, we have the RIGHT to any weapon we choose". Its a literal right.

Attached: subjecttothejuristictiontherof.gif (750x1065, 107K)

2nd amendment is about guaranteeing an armed citizenry so the people can kill members of the government once Locke's conditions are met. EVERYTHING ELSE IS HORSESHIT

MAGAT has a nice ring to it

They are, but the point is that any right wingers that thinks the 14th should be redacted aren't any better and don't actually have any moral principles in their own beliefs.

And communist got cucked with just an American superstore. Your point?

The political right don't give a shit about anything as long as they hold political power. This is why you can't "logic" the right, they don't give a shit, they hold all the political power so why would they care what you say?

Why? To protect the border? Hasn't Trump sent the military? Isn't a bunch of trigger happy red-necks a recipe for disaster? I guess you'll find out.

>The Second Amendment clearly states that individuals have a right to bear arms and that the government cannot infringe this right
>UMMMMM OK SWEATY YOU HAVE TO UPDATE THAT RIGHT TO THE MODERN CONTEXT THE FOUNDERS NEVER IMAGINED SCARY AR 15S
>Nowhere is birthright citizenship actually in the Constitution, time to get rid of it
>REEEEEEEEE YOU CAN'T JUST CHANGE THE CONSTITUTION LIKE THAT IT HAS TO STAY EXACTLY THE SAME FOREVER

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 9K)

Yfw trump is going to teach leftists the difference between the holy bill of rights and shitty post amendments

Nobody's arguing that the 14th amendment needs to be redacted; general consensus is that the extremely liberal Burger Court fucked up their ruling in 1982 and that birthright citizenship for illegal residents and foreign nationals is not implied by the amendment.

Yes nuclear weapons

Why don't we just deport the illegal parents AND their US citizen anchor baby? No need to change the constitution.

That's not what amendment 2 says though.

>You're subject to the laws and taxes of the United States so long as you live here.
Then why include "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" at all?

>subject to the jurisdiction thereof

The territorial principle means that the US has the jurisdiction of whoever is in US territory. Obviously the spirit of the text is “and subject to the SOLE jurisdiction thereof”, meaning they would not already be the citizen of another country, but using a literal and honestly reasonable interpretation of the 14th it would definitely give credence to anchor babies. It SHOULD be changed to fit the spirit of the law.

retarded faggot

Attached: 2nd amendment.jpg (3012x1728, 1.06M)

the amendment NEVER COVERED the children of illegal aliens, thats the point you dumb cuck. try to keep up if you're gonna post

OK, I feel bad for giving a disabled a hard time. Off you go buddy, you're a winner!

Attached: download.jpg (219x230, 6K)

It’s an amendment for blacks, not for foreigners to use as they see fit. The second amendment was never “reinterpreted.” Every citizen has the right to own arms because every citizen has the right to form a militia and defend themselves/their property.
Let me guess; you’re not really American?

not how the constitution works except in retard lawyer world. It is the intent that matters. The American revolution was a violent revolution that targeted a lawful processes only possible due to violence. 2nd amendment refers to the gangs that targeted British citizens, and courts for death and other "terrorist" activities resulting in Independence, only violence not any other forum. Founders would have been inspired by Locke who describes the conditions to legitimately violently overthrow government which cannot be ignored.

It doesn't say you have the right, it simply declares it is necessary. Learn to English you slack jawed mother fucker.

>We need to revoke the second amendment guns are responsible for crime
>YOU CAN'T TOUCH THE 14TH AMENDMENT
You see your hypocrisy schlomo

Attached: 1539380775741.png (500x500, 196K)

14th amendment was not drafted by a room full of geniuses (founding fathers) but was made in 1868 to help end a civil war that had devastated the country

So it mamdates the neccessitity of a free state’s populace to keep and bear arms.
I’m glad we got that cleared up, now go turn your knives into the police. Tell the sharia rape gangs what’s up for me on your way over.

Attached: D6B524E2-CA16-4D08-A702-E1C1614792A7.jpg (435x570, 48K)

The government does not grant rights as it is unnecessary because they are natural rights. The Constitution just guarantees those natural rights.

>salty brits get triggered that we can have guns while they have to bin their butter knives
lmao pathetic

Attached: 1540502107924.png (432x649, 423K)

>Bongs trying to lecture anyone on anything
Please save yourself the embarrassment

Attached: lau.jpg (375x500, 55K)

Good meme, but the 14th never allowed for anchor babies.

The left and communist kike organizations like ACLU just meme'd it into existence, and Dems went along for it because beaner votes.

Many many companies possesses and manufacturers biological weapons
indeed.com/m/jobs?q=Biological+Warfare

Birthright citizenship is unconstitutional and your an impotent twat

>I don't think this is true any more.
Imagine being such a cum guzzling, bootlicking subject that you actually believe this. Thank goodness we don't base our rights on what some lowly, sniveling peasant thinks.

Tu quoque™ for when you don't have an argument.

The goal in both cases is to safe guard American prosperity. It's not hypocritical.

Gun ownership is not a natural right. Any right that can be revoked is not a natural right.

>the meaning of language changes
What a concept! I guess when you say you want your intestines to stay "well regulated" (regular) you mean that you want government to probe your asshole on a daily basis, not that you want to eat well so that you're not getting constipation and diarrhea all the time.

Unfortunately for you retards, the changing meaning and use of language doesn't change the meaning of laws and rights as they were when they were written.

You're an idiot if you think anyone could afford a nuke

>we should change good laws
>we should not change bad laws
Imagine being this stupid

All rights can be revoked, what's your point?

Get a passport you ignorant yanky doodle dog shite

If Bongs could actually comprehend why America will always need a militia perhaps they wouldn't be in the mess they're in now.