We are continually arguing how the Constitution should be viewed - usually depending on our feelings about a particular issue. Well, you are either an originalist or you are not an originalist. You either believe the Constitution should be taken literally without screwing with it or you believe it is a "living document" that should be interpreted according to changing values and circumstances. Either way you can't argue that the 14th Amendment is inviolate and must be taken literally without exception and then turn around and argue that the 2nd Amendment is outdated and needs to be re-interpreted against today's societal values.
So, here is my challenge to both sides. Okay, we take the 14th as absolute. If you are born here you are a citizen, no ifs, ands or buts. Don't care how you got here, you cannot be denied citizenship for any reason. And we agree to take the 2nd as absolute. Your right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, no ifs, ands or buts. Don't care who you are or what you've done it is your by God right to have the gun of your choice and that right cannot be denied for any reason.
Either agree or disagree - on the record. If you disagree for either reason please stop pontificating on either issue. Fair?
So, here is my challenge to both sides. Okay, we take the 14th as absolute. If you are born here you are a citizen, no ifs, ands or buts. Don't care how you got here, you cannot be denied citizenship for any reason. And we agree to take the 2nd as absolute. Your right to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed, no ifs, ands or buts. Don't care who you are or what you've done it is your by God right to have the gun of your choice and that right cannot be denied for any reason.
Either agree or disagree - on the record. If you disagree for either reason please stop pontificating on either issue. Fair?
