If you are born here you are ….

7/5/2026 8:04pm
early wrote:

I'm for doing something about it that isn't lying and saying the 14th has been used wrong from day one. 

The people who abolished slavery believed the practice was wrong even though it had been going on for many years. Were they of low IQ? Were they lying, or were they just wrong? 

2
early
Posts
10008
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH, USA
7/5/2026 8:13pm
early wrote:

I'm for doing something about it that isn't lying and saying the 14th has been used wrong from day one. 

The people who abolished slavery believed the practice was wrong even though it had been going on for many years. Were they of low IQ? Were...

The people who abolished slavery believed the practice was wrong even though it had been going on for many years. Were they of low IQ? Were they lying, or were they just wrong? 

Were they lying about the constitutional precedent of slavery or were they saying this is wrong and we should do something about it?

Chance1216
Posts
8785
Joined
4/1/2018
Location
Carson, CA, USA
7/5/2026 9:04pm

I love watching questions get answered with questions. It’s like watching a blind man pick out his favorite porno

4
Gworm
Posts
2807
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/6/2026 1:38am Edited Date/Time 7/6/2026 2:19am
early wrote:

Were they lying about the constitutional precedent of slavery or were they saying this is wrong and we should do something about it?

Your rebuttal to everything is either “you’re low IQ” or “ you’re a liar”, which leads me to say that you, sir, have been mercifully relieved of the ravages of intelligence. 

1
1

The Shop

LoudLove
Posts
2932
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
USA
7/6/2026 3:03am

Specifically, what problems would modifying or outright overturning the 14th Amendment solve?

2
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4589
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
7/6/2026 3:20am
LoudLove wrote:

Specifically, what problems would modifying or outright overturning the 14th Amendment solve?

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

2
Gworm
Posts
2807
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/6/2026 3:53am Edited Date/Time 7/6/2026 4:35am
LoudLove wrote:

Specifically, what problems would modifying or outright overturning the 14th Amendment solve?

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

4
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4589
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
7/6/2026 4:10am
LoudLove wrote:

Specifically, what problems would modifying or outright overturning the 14th Amendment solve?

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

Exactly! This is going to hit hard in the future if something doesn’t change.

2
LoudLove
Posts
2932
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
USA
7/6/2026 4:22am Edited Date/Time 7/6/2026 4:23am
I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

Exactly! This is going to hit hard in the future if something doesn’t change.

I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported Trump’s position could shine a light on their rationale. 

1
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4589
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
7/6/2026 4:59am Edited Date/Time 7/6/2026 9:23am
Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

Exactly! This is going to hit hard in the future if something doesn’t change.

LoudLove wrote:
I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported...

I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported Trump’s position could shine a light on their rationale. 

To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something isn’t changed with this.

1
DeStouwer
Posts
3578
Joined
2/17/2015
Location
BE
7/6/2026 5:05am Edited Date/Time 7/6/2026 6:10am
I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

You do realise that that application means Folarin Balogun is actually American and eligible to play for team USA right? Otherwise he would've been English. 

2
LoudLove
Posts
2932
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
USA
7/6/2026 5:19am

Exactly! This is going to hit hard in the future if something doesn’t change.

LoudLove wrote:
I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported...

I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported Trump’s position could shine a light on their rationale. 

To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something...

To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something isn’t changed with this.

I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative connotations in modifying or overturning an amendment?  Abolishing BC would have both positive and negative outcomes, but it’s difficult to predict to what degree.  

1
early
Posts
10008
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH, USA
7/6/2026 5:36am
LoudLove wrote:

Specifically, what problems would modifying or outright overturning the 14th Amendment solve?

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

3
7/6/2026 6:08am
I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

If it's open to interpretation, it is poorly written, and should be re-written, so there is no room for interpretation.

2
avidchimp
Posts
5800
Joined
7/9/2008
Location
EGL, MN, USA
7/6/2026 6:10am
I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

Wait until the anti-gun nuts use all of this pearl clutching of the 14th and apply it to the 2A. If people are going to cherry pick their ideas of what was intended in an amendment, it's open season on all of them. Careful what you wish for...

2
borg
Posts
6879
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
7/6/2026 6:54am
Gworm wrote:
Do you know for a fact that the founders in 1868 meant for it to mean that someone should be able to come to our country...

Do you know for a fact that the founders in 1868 meant for it to mean that someone should be able to come to our country illegally and have a baby and be entitled to citizenship? 
 


 

borg wrote:
For one thing, there was no such thing as crossing our border illegally in 1868. Anybody could cross the border until they passed a law banning...

For one thing, there was no such thing as crossing our border illegally in 1868. Anybody could cross the border until they passed a law banning Chinese entry in the 1870's. It wasn't until the 1920's that they made unauthorized border crossing by anybody illegal. So the legislators who debated the 14th amendment never considered the aspect you are referring to. It was neither argued for or against. 

Gworm wrote:

This makes the point that it is open to interpretation. 

As it always is. The first 10 amendments are called The Bill of Rights. I say bullshit for that very reason. There are no rights, there are only privileges and flimsy ones at that. I was long ago disabused of the notion that the SC is a non political body but I still hang on to the hope that it mostly is. I don't want presidents and courts making law. I prefer it done the way the framers set it up. This ruling was essentially 5-4 in interpreting absolute BC. I would have thought it would be more like 7-2 min but that's only my opinion. I would be considered a textualist. Courts gleaning rights and injunctions from thin air or poorly written law is how we got Roe v Wade. There is way to correct poorly written law. I realize that in this environment it's a non starter which is another indication that we are careening down the path towards a more tyrannical government. Presidents acting as kings and lawmaking courts add grease to the path. The easy way is not always the best way. Fix the 14th the right way.

2
7/6/2026 6:56am
Chance1216 wrote:

I love watching questions get answered with questions. It’s like watching a blind man pick out his favorite porno

You ever try to watch porn without sound? [\closed]

LoudLove
Posts
2932
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
USA
7/6/2026 6:57am
I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and...

I’m obviously no legal scholar, but what needs to change is this ridiculous application of the 14th where non citizens can have a child here and this alone qualifies them as a US citizen.Do you agree with that?

Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied, but when we wade to accusations, let’s be confident in our understanding of a person’s intent. 

(Early, this post is not aimed only at you.  It’s for the broader audience.)

2
1
R66
Posts
1396
Joined
4/16/2021
Location
Atlanta, GA, USA
7/6/2026 7:41am

Do those here illegally support communism? That is what we should be worried about. 

3
borg
Posts
6879
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
7/6/2026 7:54am
R66 wrote:

Do those here illegally support communism? That is what we should be worried about. 

I would be more concerned about those that are here legally that support Socialism.

1
Gworm
Posts
2807
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/6/2026 8:17am
Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

LoudLove wrote:
Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied...

Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied, but when we wade to accusations, let’s be confident in our understanding of a person’s intent. 

(Early, this post is not aimed only at you.  It’s for the broader audience.)

Thank you Loudlove. 

I am not in favor of selective use of the constitution. 

I am in favor of correct interpretation, especially when it involves giving foreigners rights over Citezens. 

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Read the sentence in including “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”


This is what is the basis for the dissent. 

Many say that if the parents are here legally or illegally, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. This does t mean they can violate our laws, but they are not subject of the US, and therefore their offspring would also. Otherwise if they went home, the baby wouldn’t be a citizen of their own country. 

The left thinks that the right is trying to change something, but most think that the left is trying to hijack the interpretation to suit their agenda. 

Like I’ve said above, the SC had differing opinions… 

But what do I know, I’m low IQ. 

 

2
Gworm
Posts
2807
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/6/2026 8:24am
early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

LoudLove wrote:
Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied...

Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied, but when we wade to accusations, let’s be confident in our understanding of a person’s intent. 

(Early, this post is not aimed only at you.  It’s for the broader audience.)

Gworm wrote:
Thank you Loudlove. I am not in favor of selective use of the constitution. I am in favor of correct interpretation, especially when it involves giving foreigners rights...

Thank you Loudlove. 

I am not in favor of selective use of the constitution. 

I am in favor of correct interpretation, especially when it involves giving foreigners rights over Citezens. 

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Read the sentence in including “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”


This is what is the basis for the dissent. 

Many say that if the parents are here legally or illegally, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. This does t mean they can violate our laws, but they are not subject of the US, and therefore their offspring would also. Otherwise if they went home, the baby wouldn’t be a citizen of their own country. 

The left thinks that the right is trying to change something, but most think that the left is trying to hijack the interpretation to suit their agenda. 

Like I’ve said above, the SC had differing opinions… 

But what do I know, I’m low IQ. 

 

Citizens… fat thumbs and a low IQ

byke
Posts
3078
Joined
8/12/2015
Location
Auburn, CA, USA
7/6/2026 8:29am

Constitutional purism has never been a thing, otherwise we all get mortars and nukes and can threaten to kill people. 

early
Posts
10008
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH, USA
7/6/2026 9:12am
Gworm wrote:
Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back...

Especially when you add in the Birthright tourism where countries like China are sending women over to have babies here for the citizenship, taking them back to raise in China’s culture, and then they will be able to come here and vote when they turn 18. 

They are trying to conquer us without firing a shot ( well, not lead anyway ). 

early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

LoudLove wrote:
Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied...

Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied, but when we wade to accusations, let’s be confident in our understanding of a person’s intent. 

(Early, this post is not aimed only at you.  It’s for the broader audience.)

I'm using that phrase as a pierce the veil technique, occasionally the shoe fits. 

1
early
Posts
10008
Joined
2/13/2013
Location
University Heights, OH, USA
7/6/2026 9:16am
early wrote:
Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys...

Thanks for admitting it. You guys want to selectively apply the constitution to fit your end goal. To get there you are arguing that the guys that wrote the Constitutional amendment and everyone ever since didn't know how to read it.

This is a low IQ argument.

LoudLove wrote:
Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied...

Could we move away from the insults and mud slinging?  Gworm has not deliberately stated he’s in favor of selectively applying the 14th. Perhaps it’s implied, but when we wade to accusations, let’s be confident in our understanding of a person’s intent. 

(Early, this post is not aimed only at you.  It’s for the broader audience.)

Gworm wrote:
Thank you Loudlove. I am not in favor of selective use of the constitution. I am in favor of correct interpretation, especially when it involves giving foreigners rights...

Thank you Loudlove. 

I am not in favor of selective use of the constitution. 

I am in favor of correct interpretation, especially when it involves giving foreigners rights over Citezens. 

Section 1

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Read the sentence in including “ and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”


This is what is the basis for the dissent. 

Many say that if the parents are here legally or illegally, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country. This does t mean they can violate our laws, but they are not subject of the US, and therefore their offspring would also. Otherwise if they went home, the baby wouldn’t be a citizen of their own country. 

The left thinks that the right is trying to change something, but most think that the left is trying to hijack the interpretation to suit their agenda. 

Like I’ve said above, the SC had differing opinions… 

But what do I know, I’m low IQ. 

 

Why did they use the word citizen 2 times and persons 3 times in the 14th amendment, what distinctions are they making and when? Think about it.

How does your definition of jurisdiction square with its use in the 13th amendment, can we have illegals as slaves?

1000051992
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4589
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
7/6/2026 9:19am
LoudLove wrote:
I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported...

I appreciate the responses, but they are largely hypothetical.  What data are people using to warrant overturning the 14th Amendment?  The 3 SC judges who supported Trump’s position could shine a light on their rationale. 

To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something...

To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something isn’t changed with this.

LoudLove wrote:
I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative...

I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative connotations in modifying or overturning an amendment?  Abolishing BC would have both positive and negative outcomes, but it’s difficult to predict to what degree.  

I can’t see anything positive coming out of doing nothing. And 20 years down the road everyone will be thinking “ what were we thinking” .

1
borg
Posts
6879
Joined
12/7/2009
Location
Long Beach, CA, USA
7/6/2026 9:48am

There are 192 pages of concurrences and dissents. The dissents were all but 29 pages so I am not going to read all that. A summary of the dissents focuses mostly on misreading the framer's intent and the consequences of the majority opinion. Both of these reasons are problematic for me. Discerning the framer's intent leaves the door wide open for interpretation unless it is explicit in the text, which it is not. If it is what the framers wanted, they should have written the text to reflect that. As for the consequences of the majority opinion, the manifestations of laws are the propriety of the lawmakers not the court. If a constitutional amendment is passed, the court is bound to apply it. No matter what it says. They can review laws and cases for constitutionality but not properly generated amendments. Like the President, they have no say in amending the constitution.

LoudLove
Posts
2932
Joined
7/16/2010
Location
USA
7/6/2026 10:08am
To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something...

To me it’s obvious that the writing is on the wall if this birthright abuse continues. Hypothetical maybe at this point, time will tell if something isn’t changed with this.

LoudLove wrote:
I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative...

I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative connotations in modifying or overturning an amendment?  Abolishing BC would have both positive and negative outcomes, but it’s difficult to predict to what degree.  

I can’t see anything positive coming out of doing nothing. And 20 years down the road everyone will be thinking “ what were we thinking” .

Same could be said after firearm mass production shifted into overdrive.  Lower cost + widespread availability, courtesy of the 2nd Amendment, led to the 40-50 homicides daily in the US.  Changing 2A years ago would have reduced those numbers significantly. 

5
1
Kenny Banyan
Posts
4589
Joined
6/2/2024
Location
Seattle, WA, USA
7/6/2026 10:22am Edited Date/Time 7/6/2026 10:27am
LoudLove wrote:
I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative...

I think that’s the point, KB. Almost any amendment could have negative connotations if extrapolated to the nth degree. The question is, what are the negative connotations in modifying or overturning an amendment?  Abolishing BC would have both positive and negative outcomes, but it’s difficult to predict to what degree.  

I can’t see anything positive coming out of doing nothing. And 20 years down the road everyone will be thinking “ what were we thinking” .

LoudLove wrote:
Same could be said after firearm mass production shifted into overdrive.  Lower cost + widespread availability, courtesy of the 2nd Amendment, led to the 40-50 homicides...

Same could be said after firearm mass production shifted into overdrive.  Lower cost + widespread availability, courtesy of the 2nd Amendment, led to the 40-50 homicides daily in the US.  Changing 2A years ago would have reduced those numbers significantly. 

Exactly, it’s a perfect example. And look what it is now .

Gworm
Posts
2807
Joined
4/5/2017
Location
Monett, MO, USA
7/6/2026 10:28am
LoudLove wrote:
Same could be said after firearm mass production shifted into overdrive.  Lower cost + widespread availability, courtesy of the 2nd Amendment, led to the 40-50 homicides...

Same could be said after firearm mass production shifted into overdrive.  Lower cost + widespread availability, courtesy of the 2nd Amendment, led to the 40-50 homicides daily in the US.  Changing 2A years ago would have reduced those numbers significantly. 

But the 2nd deals with rights of citizens. 

To me, there is a big difference between rights of our citizens to bear arms and whether or not a baby born to a non citizen has the right to be a US citizen. 

1

Post a reply to: If you are born here you are ….

The Latest