Trump says he is seriously looking at ending birthright citizenship

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, foosh said:

 

Back to where? I was born here and the nation that represented my parents are gone for the most part

 

Sounds like we should send you back so you can fix that shithole! 

[foosh]

Just now, Jason said:

 

Sounds like we should send you back so you can fix that shithole! 

I'm in the Bay Area now! Working on fixing this shit hole!

[Dodger]

@mclumber1 needs to realize he's being selectively picky about amendment wording, and to an extend so are the rest of you. When Mclumber reads the 2nd amendment, he's right it's pretty fucking clear you have a right to own guns, and it even literally says "shall not infringe" and he's right. You have a right to arm yourself and any restrictions on that right are to be extremely limited. You want gun control? Going to have to repeal the second amendment.

 

But at the same, the 14th amendment makes birthright citizenship pretty explicit. You want to get rid of it? Going to have to get rid of the amendment. None of this well it really meant black slaves stuff.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

5 minutes ago, Dodger said:

You have a right to arm yourself and any restrictions on that right are to be extremely limited. You want gun control? Going to have to repeal the second amendment.

Really depends on what you mean by gun control.

 

Can we limit the type of weapons you can own? In large part, yes. Can you require licensing, registration, and insurance? Also yes. Can you make these restrictions so onerous that it effectively and severely restricts legal gun ownership? Probably not.

[Dodger]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Really depends on what you mean by gun control.

 

Can we limit the type of weapons you can own? In large part, yes. Can you require licensing, registration, and insurance? Also yes. Can you make these restrictions so onerous that it effectively and severely restricts legal gun ownership? Probably not.

 

 

"Shall not infringe" is pretty clear unless you have a liberal court and can keep it that way. 

[legend]

11 minutes ago, Dodger said:

@mclumber1 needs to realize he's being selectively picky about amendment wording, and to an extend so are the rest of you. When Mclumber reads the 2nd amendment, he's right it's pretty fucking clear you have a right to own guns, and it even literally says "shall not infringe" and he's right. You have a right to arm yourself and any restrictions on that right are to be extremely limited. You want gun control? Going to have to repeal the second amendment.

 

But at the same, the 14th amendment makes birthright citizenship pretty explicit. You want to get rid of it? Going to have to get rid of the amendment. None of this well it really meant black slaves stuff.

 

My position on how to read the constitution isn't being selectively picky. I think all laws should be interpreted within the context they were written and the reasoning that led to them. Changes in society and technology may mean that the original reasoning of a law doesn't apply to what's new even though the words that were written do. In which case, application of laws must be allowed to evolve accordingly and such evolution should be (and has been) under the domain of the judiciary branch.

 

Technology has radically changed since the 2nd amendment in ways that would have had an impact on the outcomes of different gun regulations. People being born in America, in contrast, is not a new idea, and the context and reasons for why that happens hasn't meaningfully changed. At a minimum, you can maybe make a weak argument for changing times for the 14th amendment that deserves further consideration, but the differences that affect gun rights relevance are beyond obvious.

[MarSolo]

I can’t wait till I own a nuclear weapon, which I’ll mount to my tank that I’ll fucking drive into work everyday.

 

SHALL NOT INFRINGE. 

[Jason]

10 minutes ago, legend said:

I think all laws should be interpreted within the context they were written and the reasoning that led to them.

 

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

19 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

"Shall not infringe" is pretty clear unless you have a liberal court and can keep it that way. 

My summary was basically from the Heller case as decided by Scalia. 

[Dodger]

27 minutes ago, legend said:

 

My position on how to read the constitution isn't being selectively picky. I think all laws should be interpreted within the context they were written and the reasoning that led to them. Changes in society and technology may mean that the original reasoning of a law doesn't apply to what's new even though the words that were written do. In which case, application of laws must be allowed to evolve accordingly and such evolution should be (and has been) under the domain of the judiciary branch.

 

Technology has radically changed since the 2nd amendment in ways that would have had an impact on the outcomes of different gun regulations. People being born in America, in contrast, is not a new idea, and the context and reasons for why that happens hasn't meaningfully changed. At a minimum, you can maybe make a weak argument for changing times for the 14th amendment that deserves further consideration, but the differences that affect gun rights relevance are beyond obvious.

 

 

My math isn't all that great but the second amendment is even older than the 14th. Look, I'm not a gun nut, I just recognize the 2nd amendment exists. And your interpretation is selectively picky. You don't like guns, so your interpretation of "shall not infringe" is we we can can infringe a little bit, and by little bit you mean as much as you can get away with. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

[SuperSpreader]

1 hour ago, foosh said:

 

Back to where? I was born here and the nation that represented my parents are gone for the most part

Put him on a boat! Off to sea!

[SaysWho?]

It's easy to interpret the second amendment as, "Right to bear arms, not necessarily every arm that exists," because we already do that, just as it's easy to interpret the 14th amendment as birthright citizenship because that's what we do.

[Dodger]

1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

 

 

We're long past arguing whether or not you can own a tank or nuke or whatever. Come to Arizona and you can see people carrying a pistol on them at Walmart while you buy your socks. 

[skillzdadirecta]

2 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose

 

Or is it? 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Dodger said:

 

 

We're long past arguing whether or not you can own a tank or nuke or whatever. Come to Arizona and you can see people carrying a pistol on them at Walmart while you buy your socks. 

Lmao I pulled that quote right from Heller, the second issue held by the court in the majority's opinion

[legend]

11 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

My math isn't all that great but the second amendment is even older than the 14th.

 

Yeah, that's an argument to my point. It's in even more need of reconsideration than the 14th because more can--and has--changed that is relevant to it. I don't know what point you thought you were making.

 

Quote

 

Look, I'm not a gun nut, I just recognize the 2nd amendment exists. And your interpretation is selectively picky. You don't like guns, so your interpretation of "shall not infringe" is we we can can infringe a little bit, and by little bit you mean as much as you can get away with. 

 

No, it's not. You can't just assert that I'm being picky and ignore what I actually said I'm doing. I'm getting the feeling you've built your narrative about me and are just ignoring what is actually being said to you.

 

[Dodger]

17 minutes ago, legend said:

 

Yeah, that's an argument to my point. It's in even more need of reconsideration than the 14th because more can--and has--changed that is relevant to it. I don't know what point you thought you were making.

 

 

No, it's not. You can't just assert that I'm being picky and ignore what I actually said I'm doing. I'm getting the feeling you've built your narrative about me and are just ignoring what is actually being said to you.

 

 

 

The point is you've had the right to own a gun literally since we've had a constitution. And while "arms" have advanced over the years, again we're long past arguing whether or not you can own a tank. Now I admit I don't know your particular views and am just using you as a stand for any liberal because the views are typically similar. I apologize if yours are different. But basically, liberals treat "gun control" like conservatives treat abortion. Both just throw a bunch of restrictions on the wall and just hope that something gets to the Supreme Court and sticks. Liberals don't want anyone to have guns and will take whatever restrictions they can get, conservatives don't want anyone having abortions so they'll take whatever restrictions they can get. Now I realize that is a mile high macro view and might not encapsulate every single view point.

 

Also, I'm suddenly realizing I've wasted half the work day without getting damn near anything done. And I wonder why I'm not rich!

[legend]

28 minutes ago, Dodger said:

 

 

The point is you've had the right to own a gun literally since we've had a constitution. And while "arms" have advanced over the years, again we're long past arguing whether or not you can own a tank. Now I admit I don't know your particular views and am just using you as a stand for any liberal because the views are typically similar. I apologize if yours are different. But basically, liberals treat "gun control" like conservatives treat abortion. Both just throw a bunch of restrictions on the wall and just hope that something gets to the Supreme Court and sticks. Liberals don't want anyone to have guns and will take whatever restrictions they can get, conservatives don't want anyone having abortions so they'll take whatever restrictions they can get. Now I realize that is a mile high macro view and might not encapsulate every single view point.

 

Also, I'm suddenly realizing I've wasted half the work day without getting damn near anything done. And I wonder why I'm not rich!

 

 

 

Assuming anyone you respond to is part of some monolithic tribe and addressing them as if their position is what you expect everyone in that tribe to hold is a bad way to have a discussion. I don't expect you to know all the nuances of my position--we can talk about that, but when I explicitly provide you my reasoning I do expect to you respond to that instead of ignoring it and directly accusing me of something that has nothing to do with what I said.

 

I could repeat what I said in other words, but I feel like I've already described why your point about the second amendment  being older only furthers my point (if anything), and it sounds like now isn't a good time for you anyway.

 

[Dodger]

4 minutes ago, legend said:

 

 

 

Assuming anyone you respond to is part of some monolithic tribe and addressing them as if their position is what you expect everyone in that tribe to hold is a bad way to have a discussion. I don't expect you to know all the nuances of my position--we can talk about that, but when I explicitly provide you my reasoning I do expect to you respond to that instead of ignoring it and directly accusing me of something that has nothing to do wit what I said.

 

I could repeat what I said in other words, but I feel like I've already described why your point about the second amendment  being older only furthers my point (if anything), and it sounds like now isn't a good time for you anyway.

 

 

 

There haven't been any radical advances in gun technology in quite some time, other than the coming of 3D printed guns which is probably a separate discussion. So yes, the technology of the time of the 2nd amendment was written different, but it's not appreciably any different today than it was 50 years ago. At least not with guns. We don't have personal laser pistols or anything yet. Yes, there are restrictions on what kind of guns you can own. Yeah maybe we can require background checks and a registry and red flag laws or whatever.And yes, invisibly their probably have been a few shootings that never happened because existing laws prevented someone from easily getting a gun. But at the end of the day as long as the second amendment exists, "law abiding citizens" will be able to buy guns, and people in the houses of those people will have access to those guns. 

 

Not that I'm suggesting a defeatist attitude of well the 2nd amendment exists let's just forget everything, but the right to own a gun is pretty clear. Yeah we can have some restrictions, and that probably will stop a few tragedies from ever happening which is great, but we can't solve the greater problem as long as the 2nd amendment still exists. Pretty sure in Arizona I could get a gun on my lunch break and show you all pictures of it within the hour. 

[legend]

1 hour ago, Dodger said:

 

 

There haven't been any radical advances in gun technology in quite some time, other than the coming of 3D printed guns which is probably a separate discussion. So yes, the technology of the time of the 2nd amendment was written different, but it's not appreciably any different today than it was 50 years ago. At least not with guns. We don't have personal laser pistols or anything yet. Yes, there are restrictions on what kind of guns you can own. Yeah maybe we can require background checks and a registry and red flag laws or whatever.And yes, invisibly their probably have been a few shootings that never happened because existing laws prevented someone from easily getting a gun.

 

 

Why are you comparing to guns 50 years ago? I'm talking about when the second amendment was written, which was 228 years ago. I can't imagine you also don't think there is meaningful difference in that gap?

 

Quote

But at the end of the day as long as the second amendment exists, "law abiding citizens" will be able to buy guns, and people in the houses of those people will have access to those guns. 

 

I don't think every kind of gun needs to be outlawed to have a meaningful impact. There are plenty of hunting rifles that seem like they're probably mostly benign to me, for example. (Bonus points since I think eating hunted meat is preferable to our farm industry.)

 

Quote

Not that I'm suggesting a defeatist attitude of well the 2nd amendment exists let's just forget everything, but the right to own a gun is pretty clear. Yeah we can have some restrictions, and that probably will stop a few tragedies from ever happening which is great, but we can't solve the greater problem as long as the 2nd amendment still exists. Pretty sure in Arizona I could get a gun on my lunch break and show you all pictures of it within the hour. 

 

I think it's completely reasonable, even in light of the second amendment, to have much more regulation than we currently do. I agree that a complete unconditional ban isn't consistent with it. But that's not the only option and there is a ton of room in between what we have a complete ban.

 

[Slug]

3 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Can you make these restrictions so onerous that it effectively and severely restricts legal gun ownership? Probably not.

Someone tell that to New Jersey, please. :P

[Anathema-]

4 hours ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

Really depends on what you mean by gun control.

 

Can we limit the type of weapons you can own? In large part, yes. Can you require licensing, registration, and insurance? Also yes. Can you make these restrictions so onerous that it effectively and severely restricts legal gun ownership? Probably not.

 

I would argue not, but it's clear that the question of whether regulating something out of practical use is tantamount to infringing on rights has an answer that's very much up in the air. See: drugs, abortion.

[mclumber1]

55 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

I would argue not, but it's clear that the question of whether regulating something out of practical use is tantamount to infringing on rights has an answer that's very much up in the air. See: drugs, abortion.

 

Yeah, try to convince a pro-choice activist that what states like Alabama are doing with abortion are not tantamount to making abortion illegal. 

[TheGreatGamble]

9 hours ago, skillzdadirecta said:

 

So what does the "well regulated" part of the second amendment meant to you? And does "unrestricted" mean that citizens have the right to flamethrowers? 50. Cal Sniper rifles? Tanks? Those are technically all "arms".

Actually, we already have access to .50 cal sniper rifles (though a .338 Lapua is far superior), and there are absolutely tanks in private hands. And I believe flamethrowers are also legal, but you need a special license. 

[SilentWorld]

lmfao fucking flame throwers are legal? 

 

what a country. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Yeah, bro, everyone down here has a flamethrower and thousands are dying each year. It's a huge problem. 

[SilentWorld]

6 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Yeah, bro, everyone down here has a flamethrower and thousands are dying each year. It's a huge problem. 

its pretty fucking ridiculous that flame throwers are legal. 

 

it's pretty not surprising that someone from fucking arkansas wouldn't think so though. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

32 minutes ago, SilentWorld said:

its pretty fucking ridiculous that flame throwers are legal. 

 

it's pretty not surprising that someone from fucking arkansas wouldn't think so though. 

Har Har, the Arkansas jokes are super clever. You really hurt me!

 

What I mean is, I've never given flamethrowers a fucking thought because no one has them. I didn't know if they were illegal or legal because they don't factor in our lives. It's not like you walk into Walmart and buy one. Somehow, despite living in a backwards state that you make fun of, I've never seen a flamethrower. 

 

Jackass.

[TheGreatGamble]

1 hour ago, SilentWorld said:

its pretty fucking ridiculous that flame throwers are legal. 

 

it's pretty not surprising that someone from fucking arkansas wouldn't think so though. 

you need a special license through the ATF i believe, same as silencers. But nobody really makes real flame throwers anyway nowadays. 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

6 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

you need a special license through the ATF i believe, same as silencers. But nobody really makes real flame throwers anyway nowadays. 

I mean, sure they're scary and all, but not really practical if you wanna commit murder, I would think. 

 

I guess I would have assumed they were illegal, but like I said, it's not an item that really ever crosses my mind. 

[osxmatt]

On 8/21/2019 at 5:47 PM, Keyser_Soze said:

Trump probably couldn't even pass a citizenship test.

 

In a recent survey only 36% of respondents passed a 20 question practice test for US citizenship.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/most-us-would-fail-u-s-citizenship-test-survey-finds-n918961

[Jason]

It seems relevant to point out that the Boring Company "flamethrowers" are basically just industrial torches. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/01/elon-musks-flamethrower-looks-like-its-a-propane-torch-inside-an-airsoft-gun/

[TheGreatGamble]

13 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I mean, sure they're scary and all, but not really practical if you wanna commit murder, I would think. 

 

I guess I would have assumed they were illegal, but like I said, it's not an item that really ever crosses my mind. 

Exactly. They used to be used in war because of trenches and fox holes. But they certainly aren’t going to cause the destruction of an AR when it comes to human life.

[Kal-El814]

4 minutes ago, TheGreatGamble said:

But they certainly aren’t going to cause the destruction of an AR when it comes to human life.

Not with that attitude.