All you need to know about Democrats
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
No, I didn't. I was just looking out for your health. Sorry that offended you. I'll stop.
Just like automatic and semi-automatic weapons weren't accounted for with the passage of the 2A? So you're in favor of revisiting that as well? LOL Goose. Gander. Etc.
Look up Joseph Belton. To suggest the drafters could not have foreseen semi-automatic weapons is flat out false.
CoH, seems to me that many Americans prefer expanding the breed which currently lives here versus taking in unknowns. The unknowns present a fear factor which is subject to political exploitation.
On the other hand, the fear may be justified at least to some degree.
This dilemma isn't new as it has always been a problem. The problem being who becomes citizens and how many. Once decided we update legislation and policies to implement the decision.
Because of proximity immigrants from countries on our Southwest border present a special problem. The solution here requires working with those countries and diplomacy. IMO our diplomacy with these nations seems to be lacking. Strange but true.
Interesting. Thanks for the info. No real record of common use of repeating weapons during that time or even when 2A was being drafted. And certainly not to the level of modern firearms and their capacity
They had a border bill and trump and the gop turned it down. All you offer is excuses no real policies just whine ,whine, whine.
Im not opposed to diplomatic negotiations. I think we must first make the border as secure as we can possibly make it, then negotiate the issues solely in our best interests.
The Biden brain trust has said migrants have a right to come here And then we have an obligation to feed, house, educate, give medical care and all the rest. That is fundamentally wrong.
I will vote for Trump any time to pursue immigration as he describes, which is more like the first paragraph.
More.
U.S. births continue decline, falling 17% since 2007 - UPI.com
Final government data finds the number of U.S. births falling by 2% last year compared to 2022, continuing a decades-long decline.
www.upi.com
Damn right the GOP rejected that bill. We deserve legislation that is 100% focused on the best interests of the United States and those who legally reside here. Any bill that recognizes a right to migrate should summarily be defeated. Immigration is a good thing. But it must be on our terms.
We called their fvcking bluff..
Corporate medicine backed down..
It can be done, despite the preponderance of soy boys frightened by their shadows out in public.
We were only saved by a rational SCOTUS. If Democrats sweep in November, there may be term limits and seats added. Then there will be nothing to stop the power grab.
CoH, on the subject of benefits for which immigrants are eligible you might find this helpful.
Circling back to this...
Let's talk disingenuous.
First, yes, the admin tried to push through the OSHA policy. It was released on November 6th, 2021 and then halted on November 12th. The policy was rescinded completely by early January. So how did this result in "businesses seeing the writing on the wall" for a policy that was in effect for exactly 4 business days?
Second, the OSHA mandate only covered businesses with more than 100 employees, which covers a grand total of 2% of us companies. So your "100 million+ Americans" is not even close to accurate. The population of the US between the ages of 15 and 75 is about 250 million. X 60% workforce X 2% large businesses X 20% that actually bitched about having to be vaccinated (and that's a conservative guess) = 600,000.
So I ask again, how did the government "force" businesses to have vaccine mandates? Not what they tried to do, what actually happened.
The answer is, they didn't. Companies chose to implement vaccine mandates. They believed that requiring vaccines was a net benefit of reducing employee missed work-days compared to losing people who might quit. It was dollars and cents, not government influence.
If this is all I need to know, will you stop posting about them then?
I already regret being here.
Everything has to be on gop terms no compromise and no real policies. just no.
Civilian ownership and/or possession of automatic weapons are pretty much banned in US law -- importantly, in accordance with the Heller court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment...where they implicitly reaffirmed US v. Miller upholding the NFA. Other Title II weapons restricted by the NFA include "destructive devices" (such as grenades and missiles) and short-barreled rifles and shotguns.
That said, the notion that the 2A doesn't protect the ownership of any kinds of arms that didn't exist when it was ratified is absurd. It would be like saying that the right of a free press enjoyed by journalists is restricted to printed newspapers and doesn't extend to any sort of digital publishing platform, TV, radio, etc.
But the legal concept of immigration status very much did exist in 1866 when the words "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" were drafted. So it's a sensible question whether or not those words mean that children born to illegal immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction (of the United States)." The contemporary motivation behind the citizenship clause was to amend out the Dred Scott decision, which explicitly denied citizenship not only to former slaves, but to all black people - even those who had been "free" since the moment of their birth.
However, SCOTUS already has addressed the question -- in US v. Wong Kim Ark back in 1898. In that case, a man born in San Francisco to Chinese nationals who lived and worked there (despite not being able to be naturalized) had left the country and was denied reentry under a federal statute restricting Chinese immigration. He sued, on the basis of a claim of birthright citizenship under 14A -- and won.
I'd be really surprised if the courts were ever to overturn that decision.
I agree. That was a bad bill -- and Republicans were right to reject it.
Congress can't impose term limits on federal judges -- not even the lower court judges. That would require a Constitutional amendment.
This isn't all you need to know.
In addition a partial list would include the Democrats want open borders, defund the police, kill babies, raise taxes, destroy our education, raise prices including energy, ignore Islam terrorism, and promote the notion of youngsters thinking they are Trans and/or want to have sex with others of the same sex.
