14th Amendment vs. 2nd Amendment

Abolishing the 2nd or the 14th Amendment

  • Abolish the 14th Amendment

    Votes: 29 76.3%

  • Abolish the 2nd Amendment

    Votes: 6 15.8%

  • I don't care...

    Votes: 3 7.9%
  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .
U

UH1-D Rotorhead

Moderator
Just for arguements sake, you are faced with a vote to either repeal the 14th Amendment or the 2nd Amendment...in either case, one will abolish the contentious issue of birth right of children of the undocumented, and the other, essentially will abolish all the protections/privileges of gun possession afforded by the second Amendment...choose either one...what is MOST important to you?
 
Point of view

The Founders believed that the indivual's right to arms was a natural right (or a God given right, if you prefer), and wrote the 2nd Amendment as a curb on Govt abuse of the natural right. It does not grant us a right to arms, simply being here on this earth and drawing breath grants us our right to arms.

Govt. can, through force, forbid you the exercise of your right to arms, but cannot remove it, as Govt does not grant it.

As to the birth right of children of the undocumented, they have the same natural rights as all men. Citizenship status is a political decision and has nothing to do with natural rights. It may be granted or denied at the whim of the Govt.

To play your game, I would without hesitation choose the 14th Amendment, as I don't give a rat's *ss about the "rights" of children of the undocumented.
 
Well, going off what 44 AMP said I'd say abolish the second. If we have the right to bear arms anyway I'd prefer to preserve the idea of citizenship by birth.

Though obviously you'd never get me to agree to abolish either.
 
The 14th is being abused today way beyond it's orginal intent. It is a right given by the Gov't. to those who were Brought here, not those who came to have children to break the law. The first 10 are reconigniseing what is granted from the Almighty.
 
The 2nd Amendment barely matters without the 14th. As most of you know, the only reason the Bill of Rights (including 2nd Amendment) apply to the states is because of the "equal protection" clause in the 14th. Without that states could not be restricted by the Federal Government when they tread on religion, free speech, due process, speedy trial, trial by jury, etc.

The 14th Amendment makes those apply to the states. Before the 14th, federal jurisprudence it only applied to the Federal Government. (They couldn't, for instance, ban a church, but a state legislature could).

The only thing to be said against the 14th as it concerns the 2nd is that a populace could fight back and regain the 14th by the means allowed them by the 2nd.
 
You don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The 14th amendment is extremely important for equal rights for minorities, among many other things - less now than then, but still very important. Now, the "birth citizenship/anchor baby" thing has GOT to go - definitely needs repealing, regardless of what amendment that may be in (you sure its the 14th?) - but the entire amendment need not be repealed.

But still, in the silly false dichotomy which is proposed, the answer is that the 2nd amendment is more important and should remain if we have to choose. We don't though, so the point is irrelevant. The 2nd is most important because it protects all others.
 
Last edited:
Truth be told I would abolish every admendment passed after the bill of rights. I trust the Founding Fathers alot more than the political hacks that came since then.
 
Accidentally hit 2nd. Meant 14th. Without the second there wouldn't be provision to protect the rest of the amendments, no matter how you interpret it.
 
Truth be told I would abolish every admendment passed after the bill of rights. I trust the Founding Fathers alot more than the political hacks that came since then.
Click to expand...

You should probably familiarize yourself with the amendments before you make terrible statements like that. XIII, XV, XIX, and XXV definitely should have been BoR amendments if the founders were so all powerful.
 
Truth be told I would abolish every admendment passed after the bill of rights. I trust the Founding Fathers alot more than the political hacks that came since then.
Click to expand...

I know...that whole "women voting" thing is totally overrated.
 
I kind of think that, in reality, we have to choose between the 2nd and 14th. The Second regards the threat of military rule and the security of free States. The 14th is an aberration forced upon the States by military rule. Since I believe in the Second Amendment, and I don't mean the reconstructed right-to-shoot-burglars amendment but rather the real amendment about militia securing free States ... I cannot possibly have any respect for the 14th "Amendment".
 
the whole issue of immigration, legal or not...has always

been a smoke screen 'they' use to keep you afraid. Whole communities have been distroyed because of 'race bating' and the fear people will create in an 'us vs them' mind set.

I personally believe ALL people have certain rights, regardless of where they were born, where they live, what they look like or even whether they are 'legal or not.'

Just call me a gun toten liberal.
 
Whatever positives or negatives generated by the 14th as it concerns immigration and citizenship, I posit that that section of the Amendment is a small fraction of the importance to our everyday rights anyway.

Without the 14th Amendment, the 2nd would not apply to the states, only to the Federal Government! I think the question already a bizarre question, is really:
"Do you want to lose your 2nd Amendment rights in the states and get rid of the 14th Amendment, or do you want to lose your 2nd Amendment rights completely?" If the state can infringe on them, the 2nd Amendment is moot anyway.

In terms of the importance of the 14th, "birthright citizenship" is miniscule as compared to the power of due process and equal protection. Without equal protection of our 2nd Amendment rights, we have no 2nd Amendment rights anyway.
 
Huh?

I refused to vote, because the question is not fair. There is no 'real' answer. Back in journalism class it was fun to come up with questions for politicians like...

" do you still beat your wife? Yes or No?"

No 'right' answer.
 
Care for a little history lesson?

The 14th Amendment was never ratified.

When the amendment was introduced, there were 37 states in the Union. In mid-1867, the federal Secretary of State had recieved replies from 33 of 37 states. With 28 states needed to pass, 22 states voted yes, 12 voted no and 3 were listed as not voting (Mississippi voted no, but their vote wasn't received and they were listed with the non-votes).

It should have died right there, but the .gov of the time would not be deterred and "enacted" the amendment.


http://www.civil-liberties.com/cases/14con.html
 
You have to go back to the original intent of the Founding Fathers, not bleeding heart modern liberal ideology. 1) The Founding Fathers never intended a mass of people (legal or illegal) from another country and culture far removed from our own clashing with us. Any immigrants that came here they wanted in small numbers and spread out among the population so as to assimilate with it. 2) The Founding Father's never intended citizens to be made from anchor babies of above said people breaking into this country. 3) You're right HKmp5sd, the Founding Fathers would have been abhored at the 14th Amendment, indeed said amendment was never legally passed

http://www.mises.org/freemarket_detail.asp?control=282&sortorder=authorlast

And should be repealed or nullified by the States via their representatives in House or Senate or nullified by State legislatures.

Abolish the 14th amendment, that's my vote.
 
@HKmp5sd: If you're going to give a "history lesson," try and make it complete.

It wasn't enacted until mid-1868, not in the mid-1867 timeframe you're talking about. By that time, several states had "changed their minds" and decided instead to accept it. Of course, there is plenty of controversy to be had there, and I'll let wikipedia do the talking.

So yeah, the ratification process on the 14th was just a tad shady. Then again, considering that this occurred directly after a civil war and that a majority of those opposing it seem to be the same folks who thought that people should be property...I think as long as the government of the time dotted their i's and crossed their t's I'm fine with how it went down.

Yes, that may or may not make me a bad person.
 
It was forced through at the point of a bayonet by people who thought ALL OF US should be property of the central government. The Founding Fathers would have resisted this. And the fact remains it was illegally passed.
 
So, you are saying the founding fathers only believed

folks born here were citizens? Even though further down in the wording it says, except for indians. But then it seems per wikipedia the big problem was making blacks/ slaves who were born here citizens.

I still don't see what the debate is about....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top