#2 VS #14

[Spexxvet]

According to some people, the second amendment cannot be touched. It is part of the Constitution of The United States of America, and true patriots don't think about changing this sacred document.

According to some of the same people, the fourteenth amendment is... well... touchable.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/...amendment.html

[dmg1969]

There's a big difference between the two, Spexxvet.

You can thank the 14th for encouraging people to enter the country illegally to pop out their anchor babies thus making them eligible to stay.

You can thank the 2nd for Japan not invading America during WWII.

"Admiral Yamamoto: "You cannot invade mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass." Advising Japan's military leaders of the futility of an invasion of the mainland United States because of the widespread availability of guns. It has been theorized that this was a major contributing factor in Japan's decision not to land on North America early in the war when they had vastly superior military strength. This delay gave our industrial infrastructure time to gear up for the conflict and was decisive in our later victory. "

[Undertoad]

http://factcheck.org/2009/05/misquoting-yamamoto/

But this quote is unsubstantiated and almost certainly bogus, even though it has been repeated thousands of times in various Internet postings. There is no record of the commander in chief of Japan’s wartime fleet ever saying it.

[dmg1969]

OK...you can dispute that quote. Neither of us were there. Here a few more.

Adolf Hitler: "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the supply of arms to the underdogs is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or native police. German troops alone will bear the sole responsibility for the maintenance of law and order throughout the occupied Russian territories, and a system of military strong-points must be evolved to cover the entire occupied country." Adolf Hitler, dinner talk on April 11, 1942, quoted in Hitler's Table Talk 1941-44: His Private Conversations, Second Edition (1973), Pg. 425-426. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens.

John F. Kennedy: "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann [From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws]

James Earl Jones: "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose."

The Dalai Lama: "If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun." (May 15, 2001, The Seattle Times)

[classicman]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

OK...you can dispute that quote. Neither of us were there. Here a few more.

Adolf Hitler:

John F. Kennedy:

James Earl Jones:

The Dalai Lama:

JEJ???? One of these things is not like the others ...

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by classicman

JEJ???? One of these things is not like the others ...

Damn straight. James Earl Jones wasn't a philandering irishman, a failed artist, or a weird little peacenik. He only answered to only one being in the entire freaking galaxy!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Damn straight. James Earl Jones wasn't a philandering irishman, a failed artist, or a weird little peacenik. He only answered to only one being in the entire freaking galaxy!

Bell Atlantic?

[classicman]

Originally Posted by lookout123

He only answered to only one being in the entire freaking galaxy!

Clodfobble's Brain?????????

[dmg1969]

Originally Posted by classicman

JEJ???? One of these things is not like the others ...

Yeah, I just threw him in the because he has a cool voice.

[Shawnee123]

There's a big difference between the two, Spexxvet.

No, there is not.

Either the constitution is the be-all end-all of sacred documents, or it isn't. You can't pick and choose, or so we've been told 50 billion times, because you have different feelings.

[jinx]

Both amendments have been touched. Repeatedly.

[dmg1969]

I must strongly disagree, Shawnee.

The right to keep and bear arms is spelled out in the Constitution. You can dispute what a "well regulated militia" means all you want. The right of citizens to own firearms has been upheld by the USSC. It is not illegal for law-abiding citizens to own firearms for hunting and self protection.

It IS illegal for someone to come into the country by sneaking across the border to pop out an anchor baby (or to smuggle drugs, find work...whatever). It doesn't matter WHY they're coming here...it does not change the fact that they are in the country illegally.

I'm sure you do know that the Constitution has been tweeked from time to time. So, in that respect, you are correct. It is NOT never-changing.

To sum it up...
1. The 2nd Amendment is about freedom and protecting our democracy. Are you anti-gun people against freedom and protecting the democracy?
2. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed to close this giant loophole which allows a flood of illegals into the country. I am all in favor of the children of LEGAL immigrants being citizens because they have gone through the process to do so legally.

So, we can agree to disagree.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

It IS illegal for someone to come into the country by sneaking across the border to pop out an anchor baby (or to smuggle drugs, find work...whatever). It doesn't matter WHY they're coming here...it does not change the fact that they are in the country illegally.

To sum it up...
1. The 2nd Amendment is about freedom and protecting our democracy.

2. The 14th Amendment needs to be changed to close this giant loophole which allows a flood of illegals into the country. I am all in favor of the children of LEGAL immigrants being citizens because they have gone through the process to do so legally.

I pretty much agree. welcome to hell.

[ZenGum]

Originally Posted by jinx

Both amendments have been touched. Repeatedly.

Good touch or bad touch?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by dmg1969

because they don't have the time or manpower to do anything about it.

Increasing manpower would mean enlarging the federal government and increasing taxes. The same people who want to stop illegal immigration don't want to enlarge the federal government or increase taxes.

Originally Posted by dmg1969

As far as the figures...I don't have them and I'm sure they vary according to who you believe. I think it's safe to say that it is in the billions upon billions of dollars per year. Changing 14 will at least be a start by defining that just because a pregnant illegal is lucky enough to evade capture on the way here...she can't legally put down roots because the child is a citizen.

Originally Posted by Clodfobble

What does passing an amendment really cost, other than legislators' time? ...
I don't think the cost is a valid argument against, nor do I think it's a useful exercise to gauge precisely how important this problem is in relation to other problems--if it's large enough to be a hotbutton issue that can alter the course of an election, it's large enough to address.

However, I'm not sure whether I support the idea yet or not, but only because I think it might have counterintuitive results. The way I see it, the fundamental problem is that illegal immigrants are living outside the system--they use a host of social services that they contribute no taxes to. (This is where someone might try to jump in with the notion that some illegal immigrants, by virtue of using false social security numbers, are paying taxes they will never see a return on, but the budget sheets from the border states consistently show that the expenditures far outweigh the small amount that comes back this way.)

Anchor babies, for better or for worse, are "in" the system. As minors they will continue to freely benefit for another 18 years, but then at some point they will, indeed, feed back into the system. On the other hand, if we remove the anchor baby option, I don't think it's really going to turn away that many illegal immigrants. They'll still be here, but their babies will be illegal too, and in 18 years you will still have yet another person feeding off the system without contributing. What's more, the anchor babies encourage their worker parents to truly set up home here, rather than sending the money back to Mexico, which is an even worse thing to do to our economy than just feeding off it.

This is, again, why Texas has very high sales taxes instead of state income taxes. Because that's how you tax your illegal immigrant base, thus getting back a portion of what you are spending on them. If they were paying for the services they use, no one would be complaining.

I think Pete is correct in asking for specifics. You poo-poo the notion that illegals pay payroll taxes, and you assume that all illegals are "feeding off the system without contributing". I'd like to know if either of those situations is true, and if it is, is it impactful. There's also the lower sales tax revenue that states will see, given the vast reduction in "spenders". Another factor in analyzing the cost will be the increase in the cost of products and services that will now have to be performed at a US Citizen-level wage, as opposed to the (more than likely) lower than US Citizen-level wage that the illegals have been paid.