Ghost_MH Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 16 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: That doesn't explain the Indian citizenship act of 1924 though. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Citizenship_Act Wouldn't that be because the lands they lived on weren't technically under the full jurisdiction of the United States? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost_MH Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, Reputator said: It starts with this "optional" questionnaire. With anyone answering anything other than "white" being passed on to a citizenship test. I can't begin to explain how much I hate the second part of that question anytime it pops up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 29 minutes ago, Jason said: Slaves were never considered a separate sovereign nation. You're right. They were property up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Most of those slaves were descendants of other slaves - they were beholden to no nation or subject to the jurisdiction of any nation besides the one where they were held as slaves, America. It stand to reason (in my mind) that the 14th amendment was written explicitly to grant these freed slaves citizenship. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Being deported to Spain sounds kinda nice rn tbh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, Jose said: Being deported to Spain sounds kinda nice rn tbh. Unemployment is already sky high there. Don't contribute to it pls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 1 minute ago, mclumber1 said: Unemployment is already sky high there. Don't contribute to it pls. I could get a cashier job at a grocery store and live better than here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Again, you completely fail to understand the meaning of words like "jurisdiction", regularly and erroneously conflate "beholden to" with "citizen of" and finally fail to consider the actual legislative intent of the congress, let alone the century plus of case law based on this supposition. All of this without considering the ramifications of your promoted policy with respect to noncitizens given the reigns of executive power in an increasingly illiberal, autocratic-minded white supremacists. What happens when we have generations of noncitizens who were born here, as were their parents and their parents' parents, and know no other country and then through no fault or error of their own get caught in an ICE dragnet and aren't citizens? We already know the answer to that based on the experience of Jimmy Aldaoud. To sort out the proverbial wheat from the chaff, we'd have to be a "papers please" sort of country, by law (this being the case in practice in large part already), and that doesn't strike me as particularly libertarian-ish my by reckoning. So spare us all the "well ackshully" bit it's tiresome. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marioandsonic Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 5 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Again, you completely fail to understand the meaning of words like "jurisdiction", regularly and erroneously conflate "beholden to" with "citizen of" and finally fail to consider the actual legislative intent of the congress, let alone the century plus of case law based on this supposition. All of this without considering the ramifications of your promoted policy with respect to noncitizens given the reigns of executive power in an increasingly illiberal, autocratic-minded white supremacists. What happens when we have generations of noncitizens who were born here, as were their parents and their parents' parents, and know no other country and then through no fault or error of their own get caught in an ICE dragnet and aren't citizens? We already know the answer to that based on the experience of Jimmy Aldaoud. To sort out the proverbial wheat from the chaff, we'd have to be a "papers please" sort of country, by law (this being the case in practice in large part already), and that doesn't strike me as particularly libertarian-ish my by reckoning. So spare us all the "well ackshully" bit it's tiresome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 2 hours ago, Keyser_Soze said: Trump probably couldn't even pass a citizenship test. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 12 hours ago, mclumber1 said: You're right. They were property up until the passage of the 13th amendment. Most of those slaves were descendants of other slaves - they were beholden to no nation or subject to the jurisdiction of any nation besides the one where they were held as slaves, America. It stand to reason (in my mind) that the 14th amendment was written explicitly to grant these freed slaves citizenship. I really don't understand why you're arguing this hard line on the original scope of the original intent of the text. When it comes to the second amendment, you defend it based on what is written devoid of context and scope it afforded at the time it was written. Here though, you're suddenly super concerned about the intended scope of the words when it was originally written, despite the fact that you supposedly even agree that we ought to grant birthright citizenship. Worse, it's not like babies being born in America from foreigners was something that could never happen back when this was written. The scope the plain reading affords wasn't some unpredictable change in technology, it was happening then! I realize I'm picking on you while you're already ganged up on, but I'm really baffled by this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, legend said: Worse, it's not like babies being born in America from foreigners was something that could never happen back when this was written The funny, and not all too surprising, history is the children of European immigrants were largely considered citizens, while the children of Chinese and other minorites were not. So it's within that historical context that this amendment was passed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 38 minutes ago, legend said: I really don't understand why you're arguing this hard line on the original scope of the original intent of the text. When it comes to the second amendment, you defend it based on what is written devoid of context and scope it afforded at the time it was written. I take an originalist stance on both amendments. The second amendment recognizes (not grants) that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Since you can't have a militia without a armed populace, the populace needs to be unrestricted from ownership of firearms. Being in the militia isn't a prerequisite to being able to own arms. Every free person is endowed with that right - just reference the Dred Scott decision for historical context if you'd like. The 14th Amendment recognizes the gaping hole that slavery and the 13th Amendment could have caused (and likely would have caused if not for Federal intervention via the 14th). It made the 4 million people who were previously property, and were not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country, citizens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legend Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 20 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: I take an originalist stance on both amendments. The second amendment recognizes (not grants) that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Since you can't have a militia without a armed populace, the populace needs to be unrestricted from ownership of firearms. Being in the militia isn't a prerequisite to being able to own arms. Every free person is endowed with that right - just reference the Dred Scott decision for historical context if you'd like. The 14th Amendment recognizes the gaping hole that slavery and the 13th Amendment could have caused (and likely would have caused if not for Federal intervention via the 14th). It made the 4 million people who were previously property, and were not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country, citizens. I appreciate the response. I still don't see how it pushes through though. The 2nd amendment wasn't written to afford people the right for modern weaponry that we have now. The outcomes of the law in a modern context simply could not have been considered, nor would it have been reasonable to expect them to the write a law trying to account for how future technology would change the equation. The 14th amendment, on the other hand, was written in a time that was fully cognizant of foreigners having babies in our country and yet it was still written the way it was. The only one of these two that have had out-of-scope changes from the time it was written was the 2nd, yet it's the 14th that you're entertaining as perhaps having out of intent scope. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Imagine not recognizing Congressional intent but claiming to be an originalist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Don't look at me - I don't believe that the "accident of existence" entitles someone to citizenship even if their parents are citizens, natural born or otherwise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 1 hour ago, mclumber1 said: I take an originalist stance on both amendments. The second amendment recognizes (not grants) that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Since you can't have a militia without a armed populace, the populace needs to be unrestricted from ownership of firearms. Being in the militia isn't a prerequisite to being able to own arms. Every free person is endowed with that right - just reference the Dred Scott decision for historical context if you'd like. The 14th Amendment recognizes the gaping hole that slavery and the 13th Amendment could have caused (and likely would have caused if not for Federal intervention via the 14th). It made the 4 million people who were previously property, and were not subject to the jurisdiction of any other country, citizens. 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". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 18 hours ago, Chairslinger said: If Trump gets a second term there is a good chance he'll work out a way to deport you for being a Democrat. I am not even sure if I'm kidding. And when Democrats win there is a good chance they will work out a way to put white conservatives in jail for hate crimes. See how much fun this is Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 Just now, 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". Well regulated means in "good working order". Unrestricted would mean arms that are capable of being used by a single infantryman. Flamethrowers? Yes (already legal in most states). 50 Cal snipers? Yes (already legal in most states). Tanks? Yes (But this is starting to diverge from the idea of being able to be operated by a single person). I would add that indiscriminate weapons, such as explosives, bombs, poison gas, bio weapons would not be considered arms under this interpretation. That isn't to say that a person's 2nd amendment rights cannot be removed. Removal of rights is completely constitutional via due process. But it should be done on a case by case basis, not on a mass scale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 6 minutes ago, Dodger said: And when Democrats win there is a good chance they will work out a way to put white conservatives in jail for hate crimes. See how much fun this is What? Should we not be jailing white conservatives for hate crimes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dodger Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 9 minutes ago, PaladinSolo said: What? Should we not be jailing white conservatives for hate crimes? I'm pretty sure Mclumber secretly supoprts Trump and just says he doesn't here so you all don't throw him in the gulag when the time comes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kal-El814 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 36 minutes ago, Dodger said: And when Democrats win there is a good chance they will work out a way to put white conservatives in jail for hate crimes. We SHOULD put anyone who commits hate crimes into jail (or fine them or whatever, depending on the crime) lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 32 minutes ago, mclumber1 said: Well regulated means in "good working order". Unrestricted would mean arms that are capable of being used by a single infantryman. Flamethrowers? Yes (already legal in most states). 50 Cal snipers? Yes (already legal in most states). Tanks? Yes (But this is starting to diverge from the idea of being able to be operated by a single person). I would add that indiscriminate weapons, such as explosives, bombs, poison gas, bio weapons would not be considered arms under this interpretation. That isn't to say that a person's 2nd amendment rights cannot be removed. Removal of rights is completely constitutional via due process. But it should be done on a case by case basis, not on a mass scale. And you don't see ANYTHING remotely illogical about any of this? Ok. Hand Grenades are capable of being used by a single infantryman... they are also explosives and are most DEFINITELY "arms". So are heavy machine guns and fully automatic weapons. Anyway I always took "well regulated" to mean "trained and disciplined". But if you believe that the average citizen in THIS country should have unfettered access weapons of war then yeah... I'm not sure what the point is in having further discussion about this topic. No offense Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, Kal-El814 said: We SHOULD put anyone who commits hate crimes into jail (or fine them or whatever, depending on the crime) lol I think what he's saying is that when White Conservatives commit hate crimes, they're not REALLY hate crimes... They're REALLY about the economy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commissar SFLUFAN Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 How on earth do you get "in good working" order from the context of "well regulated" as it's used in the Second Amendment? That question is entirely rhetorical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skillzdadirecta Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: How on earth do you get "in good working" order from the context of "well regulated" as it's used in the Second Amendment? That question is entirely rhetorical. Words... they can mean whatever you want them to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 4 minutes ago, skillzdadirecta said: And you don't see ANYTHING remotely illogical about any of this? Ok. Hand Grenades are capable of being used by a single infantryman... they are also explosives and are most DEFINITELY "arms". So are heavy machine guns and fully automatic weapons. Anyway I always took "well regulated" to mean "trained and disciplined". But if you believe that the average citizen in THIS country should have unfettered access weapons of war then yeah... I'm not sure what the point is in having further discussion about this topic. No offense Grenades are weapons that can be used by a single infantryman. However they are indiscriminate in their use. I would say it's fine to restrict them the same way other explosives are restricted. It is possible to own live grenades in the US. They are classified as destructive devices and require a background check and a $200 tax stamp for each grenade though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mclumber1 Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 2 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said: How on earth do you get "in good working" order from the context of "well regulated" as it's used in the Second Amendment? That question is entirely rhetorical. Based on how "well regulated" was used in language at the time of the founding of the nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foosh Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 This is how I'm a citizen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 22, 2019 Author Share Posted August 22, 2019 1 minute ago, SFLUFAN said: How on earth do you get "in good working" order from the context of "well regulated" as it's used in the Second Amendment? That question is entirely rhetorical. Because historically that's what it meant. The Second Amendment wasn't this confusing to the people who wrote it, the entirety of the confusion is due to language drift since it was written. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 22, 2019 Author Share Posted August 22, 2019 https://www.dictionary.com/browse/well-regulated Quote regulate to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaladinSolo Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 34 minutes ago, Dodger said: I'm pretty sure Mclumber secretly supoprts Trump and just says he doesn't here so you all don't throw him in the gulag when the time comes. We don't believe in mass incarceration, only Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 1 minute ago, Jason said: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/well-regulated Give me a well sourced contextual meta analysis of that phrase using mid to late 1700's periodicals and literature as source material or give me death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firewithin Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 8 minutes ago, foosh said: This is how I'm a citizen SEND FOOSH BACK! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 22, 2019 Author Share Posted August 22, 2019 1 minute ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Give me a well sourced contextual meta analysis of that phrase using mid to late 1700's periodicals and literature as source material or give me death Well, as this convincingly argues, the meaning of "well-regulated militia" is actually moot anyhow: http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foosh Posted August 22, 2019 Share Posted August 22, 2019 12 minutes ago, Firewithin said: SEND FOOSH BACK! Back to where? I was born here and the nation that represented my parents are gone for the most part Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.