Random Politics & Religion #35: It's Turtle Time!

Because nothing in politics makes sense. Everyone knows politicians lie, but any politician who admits that they stretch the truth from time to time will get a ton of backlash for it.

In other words, it's better to be a deceitful liar than a transparent one. Why? Because people are idiots.

The 2nd Amendment spells out the rights.


The active word is shall not be infringed, meaning the government can't restrict or remove it. It clearly states that the people have a right to possess firearms and that the government can not infringe on that right. It also includes language authorizing non-Government para-military organizations and stipulating the reasons for both of these rights.

The 14th Amendment, part 1


It spells it the *** out with zero exceptions or room for interpretation. It then goes on to clearly say that states can not remove citizenship or control citizenship in any way. And finally it says that due process applies to everyone regardless of citizenship.

That last part is super important because it use's a very special phrase "any persons" while also having the same term "citizens" in the same context. This means they clearly recognized the different category of voting citizens and everyone else.

You can have whatever personal opinion you want about the 14th, but that opinion isn't law nor does it provide reasonable ground to argue on. Of course that hasn't stopped progressives from trying to redefine away gun ownership rights.

So I guess Nausi is a progressive now.

Not to pick holes, but what does it say about when they don't have "permanent residence" here? For example, people without documents living here without residency or visas?

Generally asking for clarification, not being a smart ***.

Not really because he hasn’t considered how corporate personhood is potentially affected by modifying the 14th amendment recklessly.

Still trying to find the doctor I lost he said I could keep. =P

Not to stray away from point, but they DO infringe. Some reasonable control is acceptable, but that reasonable control has been hijacked to ban perfectly normal items used by and far in many states without issues.

ANYWAYS. Ummm....saw an article earlier about more Jewish people taking up arms for self defense.

They would be subjected to the laws of the United States therefore the child would be eligible.

That wording is intentional so as to not create diplomatic drama.

Children of foreign dignitaries, ambassadors, royalty born in the US would not be eligible.

The concept of illegal immigrants didn't really exist during this time.

Actually this case does highlight something very important, the entire reason it happened in the first place was that the US had made some regulations restricting those of Chinese descent from immigrating to the US (sound familiar). He was denied entry because he was Chinese and his parents weren't naturalized, the Supreme court said that didn't matter and that his birth on US soil and his parents not being representatives of a foreign government (diplomatic immunity) was sufficient to satisfy the 14th Amendment requirements.

Immigration wasn't nearly as restricted during this case but there was some laws around it. The Supreme Court didn't say much about those but since then it's just been assumed that birth on US soil is sufficient.

Now in order to argue against something like this you would need a crazy strong legal reason because there are literally millions of US citizens who are citizens by birth from foreign parents. This would be arguing for their disenfranchisement which is a huge legal landmine and the Supreme Court tends to look unfavorably on those things.

Understood, so the loophole is that those foreign people, ambassadors and royalty, could not count as part of that. GOTCHA. Makes sense.

Was just curious since residency NOW means legal status to live here and work with the residency card/"green card"

Thank you very much Zero. =) Have a good weekend in case I forget to say it tomorrow.

Ahh but a later amendment granted the government right to reasonable infringement under the well being clause. Thus someone who has committed a felony and proven to be a danger to other citizens can have their rights infringed upon until such time as they are no longer considered a danger to society.

Check out the later clause's of the 14th, it mentions some of that.

/raises hand

OOOOH OOOH TEACHER! MEE! THAT'S ME!

Folks are here legally and have all dots dotted and ts crossed.

Agreed and reasonable. But that's on an individual case by case for "if you committed felon, you lose rights" not a blanket scope of "we don't like these guns, we will ban you from having them, also we will make it difficult, to impossible for you to carry for reason of self defense" nonsense.

The lack of Simpsons gifs/videos is disturbing

It's Nov and retail told me it is Christmas time:

First episode of "modern Simpsons"

Exactly, it requires that the "person" violate the law by committing a felony and thus disenfranchise themselves. The 14th amendment is what creates the ability for States to suspend certain constitutional rights for the commission of crimes.

Yah! BTW, I'm not touching that 14th Amendment thing. LOL. I don't want it removed or changed, but would listen to reasonable arguments for restraining it/modifying it.

Well if they really wanted they would have to argue that those who entered without inspection (that's illegals) and are a citizen of another country, are still subject to the jurisdiction of other countries and thus not subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

That's a super thin argument though and likely to get knocked down pretty easily. The Constitution makes a distinction between "persons / people" and "citizens". The first category means anyone present in the US while the second refers only to US citizens. So the whole thing basically breaks down to "anyone born in the US and subject to US law is a citizen". Someone would have to argue that not entering legally makes them not lawfully subject to US law...

So, did we discuss Don Lemon or we giving him a pass?

I wish you would post from non biased sources. The rest of his quote is magically missing.

When I can, I tell the truth (about what is public knowledge, obviously some things are not.)

CNN loves to butcher comments to make Trump look bad and libs wonder why he has a war against media.

Its a quote from an interview he gave to ABC news. The article not pnly places it in context, it links to the interview.

"when I can" unfortunatly he can't.

That 1898 precedent addresses people who have permanent domicile in the US. Modern illegals cannot have a permanent domicile in the US because they do not jave legal authority to be here permanently.

Only one way to respond to this:

Everybody have fun tonight...everyone ignore CJ posts tonight !

Rocks are Guns!

I admit I'm crazy but not crazy enough to understand some of the people here...maybe if I have 3 beers. I can only comprehend insanity drunk.