re: Reagan era judges shoots down Trump 14th amendment EO

quote:

---

1. I cannot variety your point about automatic weapons in 1791.

---

Only because you've never put any effort into researching it. Automatic weapons were envisioned nearly 200 years before the second amendment, were used by the British in the Revolutionary War, and were available for purchase by the time of the second amendment.

LINK

quote:

---

A Washington Post article by David Kopel notes: “Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.”

---

It's noted that you completely ignored my very true point that guns were not the most lethal arms available at the time. The entire idea that "automatic weapons exist" is an argument, at all, is a logical fallacy at only the lowest level of intellectual discourse.

quote:

---

Idk if a native american raid on a school is really the same thing as a kid showing up and wasting 15 of his classmates.

---

"Not that school shooting! Only the new ones matter!"

quote:

---

But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.”

---

"Repeating" is not "automatic"

quote:

---

The court does, however, expressly state that their view of “subject to the jurisdiction” only applies “so long as the US permits them (the parents) to reside here.”

quote:

---

Chinese persons, born out of the United States, remaining subjects of the emperor of China, and not having become citizens of the United States, are entitled to the protection of and owe allegiance to the United States, so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here; and are 'subject to the jurisdiction thereof,' in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

---

---

The clause you bolded, "so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here," modifies the clause "are entitled to the protection of, . . . , the United States." In other words, Chinese persons are entitled to the protection of, and owe allegiance to, the United States so long as they are permitted by the United States to reside here.

Your bolded clause does not modify "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Indeed the bolded clause is separated from that clause by a semicolon. Rather, the Court states that Chinese persons are "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the same sense as all other aliens residing in the United States.

quote:

---

Here we have the dumbest argument anyone will make today.

---

Glad to know you don't know the difference in semi-automatic and automatic.

Both are "repeating" arms, but both are not automatic.

quote:

---

Glad to know you don't know the difference in semi-automatic and automatic.

Both are "repeating" arms, but both are not automatic.

---

The argument is that Congress could not have considered automatic weapons when considering the second amendment. That is obviously false to the point that the argument is not even made by serious people.

ETA: Sorry everyone. I will now stop engaging with the village idiot.

quote:

---

The argument is that Congress could not have considered automatic weapons when considering the second amendment. That is obviously false to the point that the argument is not even made by serious people.

---

Only because it's made by those proposing a Living Constitution argument, which is not made by serious people.

Which is why the 180 on this issue by MAGA-types is so surreal to me. Rejecting Scalia to promote a Living Constitution was not on my MAGA Hypocrisy Bingo Card for 2025.

quote:

---

Sorry everyone. I will now stop engaging with the village idiot.

---

I'm sorry I proved you wrong and you're upset now.

It has been ruled on by the US Supreme Court long ago.

The Born part was ruled as a newborn of an already American. These rulings date to over 100 years ago.

quote:

---

"Not that school shooting! Only today's!" It's amazing to watch people try to parse an argument when they're given clear evidence that contradicts their blind beliefs.

---

You've yet to do this, no matter how many times you attempt to spike the football.

Now tell us how a semi-automatic weapon is an automatic weapon.

So, in your view, the only way the 14th can be restricted beyond those born of diplomats and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, is via a Constitutional amendment?

Is this a battle between strict textualists and contextualists/intentists? Apologies for the bastardization of the language there....

quote:

---

in your view, the only way the 14th can be restricted beyond those born of diplomats and children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation, is via a Constitutional amendment?

---

Or the Supreme Court completely reversing precedent.

quote:

---

Is this a battle between strict textualists and contextualists/intentists?

---

I understand what you mean.

It's a battle between people who proclaim to like Scalia and textualism, while wanting a policy change without having the power to do so. For many, it's clear that the desire to change the policy outweighs intellectual consistency. That's why they get so upset when you point out their projection of liking Scalia is in conflict when the rubber meets the road, especially if you point out how they're making "Living Constitution" arguments.

Then you have people who are being NPCs, again due to wanting a policy change without the power to do so properly, listening to partisan law profs trying to be clever (used intentionally and derogatorily and repeating the arguments without understanding them. We saw the same thing with the silly "you have to impeach and convict prior to criminal prosecution" from the same "clever" types, just like the 2020 fraud cases (which is why I brought up John Eastman, who led that and got sever attorneys disbarred listening to him).