25 minutes ago, DrPhilly said:

Sorry, that's not at all how the discussion went. The entire transcript is incorrect. For example, I never once said anything about "federal land" or "foreign armies".

So, then you agree it is absolutely land based (as in was the child born on US land) but with some other qualifiers that were built into the language of the 14th (just as I said from the very beginning). So basically you were wrong all along and no you agree with what I've said (and others) from the start. Good to know.

*not land based

But it was a combo of you two today other than that

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

FFS, The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because tribal lands are technically not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as they are sovereign nations. But they aren't really nations, issuing passports and such. So the Act made clear that Native Americans born on tribal lands are citizens since the tribal lands are "within the territorial limits of the United States." That in no way impacts the children of legal/illegal immigrants or even tourists who have a child on US soil.

The hysterical part? Claiming illegal immigrants or tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would mean...you can't charge them with crimes. So if SCOTUS ruled as Trump wants, you could never prosecute an illegal immigrant for a crime because they aren't subject to US jurisdiction and would need to be charged in their native country.

Yeah, and neither are people in other countries my man. It wasn't land based.

14 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

You know Diehard, the Bill of Rights never specifically excluded slaves either, yet amazingly, slaves were not protected by the Bill of Rights and it look future amendments to undo that. You know why the bill of rights didn't have to specifically exclude slaves? Because the original constitution already did exclude slaves as counting as persons of the United States. Similarly, the original constitution also excluded Native Americans as counting as persons of the United States. Hence why just like enslaved people, native Americans did not need to be specifically listed as being excluded from having amendments apply to them as the original constitution already excluded them.

And the 2A didn't say cans or class III or mag limits.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Yeah, and neither are people in other countries my man. It wasn't land based.

So tourists aren't subject to US laws?

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

So tourists aren't subject to US laws?

Thats mixing up two different things. We can still arrest and prosecute them under our criminal laws because they are physically here in our territory, just like we can bust a foreign tourist who robs a store or even a diplomats kid in some cases. But the 14th Amendment used subject to the jurisdiction to mean full political jurisdiction and real allegiance to the US, not just being bound by some of our rules. Thats why the framers excluded Native Americans even though we could often still enforce laws against them in certain ways, and why people entering illegally from other countries still owe their main allegiance to their home nation. Evidenced by the VISA babies returning back to China in many instances.

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

FFS, The Indian Citizenship Act was needed because tribal lands are technically not subject to the jurisdiction of the US, as they are sovereign nations. But they aren't really nations, issuing passports and such. So the Act made clear that Native Americans born on tribal lands are citizens since the tribal lands are "within the territorial limits of the United States." That in no way impacts the children of legal/illegal immigrants or even tourists who have a child on US soil.

The hysterical part? Claiming illegal immigrants or tourists are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States would mean...you can't charge them with crimes. So if SCOTUS ruled as Trump wants, you could never prosecute an illegal immigrant for a crime because they aren't subject to US jurisdiction and would need to be charged in their native country.

Doubly funny because the people holding this argument are acting like there was a visa system and caps back then that limited the amount of people that could enter the country. The 14th amendment was written at a time at which for all intents and purposes we had open borders. So to act like it wasn’t meant to apply to people who just arrived to the country is hilarious. People were pouring into the country on a daily basis. Of course the 14th amendment was meant to apply to them

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Thats mixing up two different things. We can still arrest and prosecute them under our criminal laws because they are physically here in our territory, just like we can bust a foreign tourist who robs a store or even a diplomats kid in some cases. But the 14th Amendment used subject to the jurisdiction to mean full political jurisdiction and real allegiance to the US, not just being bound by some of our rules. Thats why the framers excluded Native Americans even though we could often still enforce laws against them in certain ways, and why people entering illegally from other countries still owe their main allegiance to their home nation. Evidenced by the VISA babies returning back to China in many instances.

Well, every court in history has disagreed with you, but run with it.

1 minute ago, VanHammersly said:

He always seems so desperate for a W lmao, his arguments are bat-ish retarded hahahahaha

9 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Thats mixing up two different things. We can still arrest and prosecute them under our criminal laws because they are physically here in our territory, just like we can bust a foreign tourist who robs a store or even a diplomats kid in some cases. But the 14th Amendment used subject to the jurisdiction to mean full political jurisdiction and real allegiance to the US, not just being bound by some of our rules. Thats why the framers excluded Native Americans even though we could often still enforce laws against them in certain ways, and why people entering illegally from other countries still owe their main allegiance to their home nation.

That text is referring to the person who is born and basically stating that they fall under US jurisdiction by being born in the US. It isn't referring to the mother.

2 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, every court in history has disagreed with you, but run with it.

He really should be used to it at this point

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Well, every court in history has disagreed with you, but run with it.

Courts have gotten things wrong before on big constitutional issues. I think Roberts will keep it the same if for no other reason his legacy. Also, people love to throw out about the 2A that the Founders never envisioned machine guns. Well, I doubt the framers of the 14th envisioned 15-20 million people crossing our borders in the last few years or the establishment of birth tourism agencies in China which take the children back to their country who absolutely do not have an allegiance to the US. Times change and while the Constitution can stay the same it doesn't mean like with the Heller ruling there can't be limits.

1 minute ago, Diehardfan said:

Courts have gotten things wrong before on big constitutional issues. I think Roberts will keep it the same if for no other reason his legacy. Also, people love to throw out about the 2A that the Founders never envisioned machine guns. Well, I doubt the framers of the 14th envisioned 15-20 million people crossing our borders in the last few years or the establishment of birth tourism agencies in China which take the children back to their country and absolutely not having an allegiance to the US. Times change and while the Constitution can stay the same it doesn't mean like even with the Heller ruling there can't be limits.

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

The Constitution is a contract among the Federal Government and the states. Contracts are given the plain meaning of the language - intent only matters if language is ambiguous. This is not.

the stupid really just gets worse every day.

4 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

Imagine if Obama sat in on a Scotus ruling to try and pressure them to revoke 2A. You'd hear the RRRREEEEEEEEEEEEing from space.

3 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

The Constitution is a contract among the Federal Government and the states. Contracts are given the plain meaning of the language - intent only matters if language is ambiguous. This is not.

They can't say on one hand the text means what it means and we can't change it yet we'll change everything about the 2nd. I don't think the SG did a good job yesterday, but again, either there are limits based on time and changes or there aren't. If we can't limit things based on time the gov needs to drop the tax stamp for class III.

41 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Thats mixing up two different things.

25 minutes ago, Diehardfan said:

Courts have gotten things wrong before

Well folks, he may be inconceivably retarded, but it seems he still knows that L is coming anyways, no matter how much he kicks and screams about it.

26 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

the stupid really just gets worse every day.

Liehard's unique mix of retardation and racism is kind of entertaining at least.

1 hour ago, DrPhilly said:

Such a stupid take by Diehard. I wonder where he read that mess.

Likely Laura Loomers Twitter feed, he consistently mimes her takes.

36 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Which is why the right is INSANE for making this argument, because if SCOTUS agrees, the left will use the precedent to go after the 2nd.

The Constitution is a contract among the Federal Government and the states. Contracts are given the plain meaning of the language - intent only matters if language is ambiguous. This is not.

Trumps thinking isnt that nuanced, while most of the people around him are playing checkers and chess, hes still trying to figure out the rules to Tic Tac Toe.

1 hour ago, Diehardfan said:

And the 2A didn't say cans or class III or mag limits.

You’re exactly right. Which is why as I’ve always argued that any substantial change in gun laws in this country requires an amendment to the constitution. Glad we agree.

3 minutes ago, Phillyterp85 said:

You’re exactly right. Which is why as I’ve always argued that any substantial change in gun laws in this country requires an amendment to the constitution. Glad we agree.

We do on that, but it hasn't been the case or what they ruled in Heller.