Curious as to how you libtards defend this.

[SensibleKeks]

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

The beginning of the 14th states:

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

Therefore, in my expertise as a sandwich artisan at Panera, any reference to person or persons within the context of the 14th amendment is referring to a citizen of the United States. As it clearly defines a 'person'. It's cherry picking and intellectually dishonest for judges to take one sentence out of an amendment without contextualizing the whole law.

 

[LiberalPussy]

Only white people should be allowed to have guns.

 

[Farmer Brown]

The beginning of the 14th states:



Therefore, in my expertise as a sandwich artisan at Panera, any reference to person or persons within the context of the 14th amendment is referring to a citizen of the United States. As it clearly defines a 'person'. It's cherry picking and intellectually dishonest for judges to take one sentence out of an amendment without contextualizing the whole law.

No. It clearly defines a "citizen." And by using both words, "citizen" and "person" it clearly makes the distinction. A "person" is someone who is not a "citizen."

Therefore, when the amendment continues and uses the word "citizen" with regard to state laws, and then changes the language to "person," it is clearly referring to two different groups (both of which were defined above).

It's not cherry picking. The documents were very carefully constructed. The words have presice meaning. And to further contextualize the law Justices look at the framer's intent and the history and supporting documents used in creating the amendment. The intent of the framer's is absolutely carefully discerned.

But I don't know. I'm probably full of shit.

 

[guest]

Of course fear mongering always angry and scared OP never responded to admin

 

[Uncle Floyd]

Only white people should be allowed to have guns.

And vote. And breed. And enjoy ice cream.

 

[LiberalPussy]

And vote. And breed. And enjoy ice cream.

Especially that third one.

 

[RoTheHo69]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

Oh yeah?

OBAMA PREZ'DEN NAAAAAAH

 

[Imager]

Not sure its completely fine. But i've been called a libtard as i fall into the enlightened centrist position like the destroyer himself (4.0 at geneseo in polisci 101) .


Its a right based on the 2nd amendment. There have been a bunch of supreme court precedent stating that rights apply to people "under the jurisdiction of the united states", not tied to citizenship. There's a reason for that. Tying it to citizenship makes it much easier to deny rights, by revoking or calling into question citizenship. this was the whole issue around guantanamo bay being outside of US soil so they could violate habeas corpus.

The example commonly given in supreme court decisions is the wording from the 14th amendment. "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". Person, not citizen.

Now , I think its stupid to be an originalist about the constitution. There should be some amount of wiggle room here for different interpretations of where this applies. My argument is mainly against any staunch 2nd amendment advocate like cumio screaming "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED " while shouting "where the fuck is my gun" and then tweeting this article as if it were a bad decision.

There's no real winning here. If a judge went against a massive amount of previous rulings you'd likely just complain about "ruling from the bench" so to speak. As a layman the jurisprudence seems accurate with previous decisions. Did you just read "obama judge" on fox news and not look more into it? Not that I blame you it is dumb, but blame the previous court decisions not this one.



Also what you're doing with "“Actually this is completely fine and here’s why…"

is called https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well , though you probably don't care about that but it looks stupid when you do it just fyi.

I mentioned this issue in another thread and someone pointed me here.

Quick question @admin, how does what you say square up with background checks? If an illegal invader has a gun, even if it's to defend himself, the idea is that he's still covered by the 2A. But he didn't go through a federal background check (I'm assuming here, because if he did, it would be determined he was an illegal and his application denied).

So this is where I have a problem with the ruling. The law applies more to me than the illegal, unless I'm missing something. If I obtained a gun without getting a background check the feds would be all over me. So why would it be fine for an illegal to get a gun from a shady source without a background check?

(The only answer that makes sense to me is that there should be no background check to begin with, but there is, so here we are.)

 

[Dog Eater]

If I obtained a gun without getting a background check the feds would be all over me

In California sure. Still plenty of states that have no laws against face to face sales.

 

[quasi101]

I mentioned this issue in another thread and someone pointed me here.

Quick question @admin, how does what you say square up with background checks? If an illegal invader has a gun, even if it's to defend himself, the idea is that he's still covered by the 2A. But he didn't go through a federal background check (I'm assuming here, because if he did, it would be determined he was an illegal and his application denied).

So this is where I have a problem with the ruling. The law applies more to me than the illegal, unless I'm missing something. If I obtained a gun without getting a background check the feds would be all over me. So why would it be fine for an illegal to get a gun from a shady source without a background check?

(The only answer that makes sense to me is that there should be no background check to begin with, but there is, so here we are.)

yeah no idea i didn't read that far into it. That's for sure extra retarded if its the case. I read into the decision for if an illegal has a right to own a gun simplicator. Which was really my only contention in this thread so far. You don't want the government tying rights to citizenship.

I'll see if i can find more info on the background checks.

 

[NoBacon]

I'm too autistic for this post. The first thing is that we didn't really define originalist, so we very likely have different ideas about what that means. Secondly, its fine if you want to change the subject of the thread we don't have a "board culture" here, i just think its odd you took one aspect of my post to nickpick when i used an admittedly vague term.

lastly, can you make one point at a time you went through like 7 arguments here with various levels of sarcasm and/or irony so i have no idea what you're even disagreeing about.

Do you have an operational definition for originalist vs non? Here's the best i could do as a layman for now -

originalism - sticking to the original meaning and intent behind the Constitution's words, as understood when they were written. if you want to change the Constitution, you should do it through amendments, not through reinterpretation.

Non-originalism- interpreting the Constitution in a flexible way that considers how society's values and circumstances have changed over time. This focuses on the principles and values behind the Constitution's words, rather than the literal historical meanings, to apply them to modern issues.


I'm sure you put together something better than that.

Originalism is the principle or belief that a text should be interpreted in a way consistent with how it would KEEP NIGGERS OUT! NO MORE DONALD EPEKE!

 

[NoBacon]

Admin has changed my mind on it though, he’s right that you don’t want the government to tie rights to citizenship.

 

[Suetonius]

how does what you say square up with background checks? If an illegal invader has a gun, even if it's to defend himself, the idea is that he's still covered by the 2A.

Yes.

But he didn't go through a federal background check (I'm assuming here, because if he did, it would be determined he was an illegal and his application denied). So this is where I have a problem with the ruling. The law applies more to me than the illegal, unless I'm missing something.

Heres the thing, obviously (guessing, because like you said I assume their citizenship status shows up on a background check) they can’t buy a gun legally so they obtain one illegally like you, I, or anyone else would if we wanted one but couldn’t pass a background check. And if you, I, or an illegal got caught with it we’d face a charge because we’re not supposed to have it. The nature of this case is relative specifically to the criminal charge of being an illegal alien and owning a gun, not flat out owning an illegal firearm. I know that sounds kind of redundant because it is.

If I obtained a gun without getting a background check the feds would be all over me. So why would it be fine for an illegal to get a gun from a shady source without a background check?

Point to above. Thats not what it’s saying. If an illegal got caught with a gun they’d (presumably) still face an illegal firearms charge like you or I. Its about the specific law.

 

[quasi101]

Originalism is the principle or belief that a text should be interpreted in a way consistent with how it would KEEP NIGGERS OUT! NO MORE DONALD EPEKE!

oh, well why the fuck didn't you put it this way earlier. that makes sense.

 

[guest]

Yes.

Heres the thing, obviously (guessing, because like you said I assume their citizenship status shows up on a background check) they can’t buy a gun legally so they obtain one illegally like you, I, or anyone else would if we wanted one but couldn’t pass a background check. And if you, I, or an illegal got caught with it we’d face a charge because we’re not supposed to have it. The nature of this case is relative specifically to the criminal charge of being an illegal alien and owning a gun, not flat out owning an illegal firearm. I know that sounds kind of redundant because it is.

Point to above. Thats not what it’s saying. If an illegal got caught with a gun they’d (presumably) still face an illegal firearms charge like you or I. Its about the specific law.

Look, dont take this personally, but

 

[Imager]

Look, dont take this personally, but

View attachment 189074

You two are incorrigible!