promotion image of download ymail app
Promoted
Anonymous
Anonymous asked in Politics & GovernmentPolitics · 7 months ago

The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clearly written, what about the 14th Amendment? Birthright Citizenship or the Right to Bear Arms?

13 Answers

Relevance
  • Favorite Answer

    The policy stems from the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside", and was meant to override the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision that denied African Americans citizenship.[5] The application of birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants remains controversial.[6] The Pew Hispanic Center estimates that approximately 7.5% of all births in the U.S. (about 300,000 births per year) are to unauthorized immigrants.[7] The Pew Hispanic Center also estimates that there are 4.5 million children who were born to unauthorized immigrants that received citizenship via birth in the United States; while the Migration Policy Institute estimates that there are 4.1 million children. Both estimates exclude anyone eighteen and older who might have benefited.[7][8]

    The fourteenth was very *clearly* added so that former slaves could not be denied citizenship.

    No other reason than that, even though many have sought to stretch it's meaning.

    It is funny that the Liberals want to deny citizens the most basic Rights laid out in the Bill of Rights, but also want to enable a foreign invasion based upon an obvious perversion of intent.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 months ago

    The very first thing that the Second Amendment says is that regulation is essential. It makes that clear before it even mentions any rights. The right in the Second Amendment is the right to have regulated guns, and only regulated guns, and absolutely never ever to have unregulated guns under any circumstances. It is clearly written, but those who want unregulated guns, even though the Second Amendment says it is essential to avoid that, choice to ignore the first half of it.

    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      7 months agoReport

      "Regulation"? First, it is not phrased as condition to the right. Second, "well regulated" refers to training and proficiency, not restriction.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 7 months ago

    Wasn't the 14th Amendment supposed to be about slavery?

    Doesn't the 2nd Amendment just confirm that the people have a right to bear arms? There is no "because" word between the militia bit and the bear arms bit. It just confirms that the right to bear arms that people already have shall not be interfered with. YMMV!

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Thorn
    Lv 7
    7 months ago

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." - Meaning, you must be a member of a militia to own a firearm. Gun lobbyists, manufacturers and the NRA especially hate the 'regulated' part of it.

    The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1868, granted citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States—including former slaves—and guaranteed all citizens “equal protection of the laws.”

    Racists have the biggest problem with it.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      7 months agoReport

      If you're a natural part of the "unorganized militia", you have a duty to become proficient with your firearms, which is what "well regulated" actually means.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 7 months ago

    2nd amendment isn't pretty clear. Even the wording varies from document to document depending on which version you want to count as "official".

    The most accepted version and the one Congress recognises as THE Constitution says the following:

    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

    The amendment states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. However it also does something unusual. It gives the specific reason for that right and thats where the controversy comes in.

    "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

    So what the foinding father was laying out was that state militias are necessary so the states can maintain their sovereignty. Those militias were made up of armed citizen volunteers.

    No mention of the individual or the right to protect ones self ond ones property.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      7 months agoReport

      "Well regulated militia" refers to proficiency of anyone with a firearm willing to become a member of the militia at a time of need. It is also certainly not a CONDITION on the "right" to keep and bear arms, but merely one example of why it's a good idea.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • `
    Lv 5
    7 months ago

    Repeal the 14th.

    There are no more slaves.

    • ...Show all comments
    • Nuff Sed
      Lv 7
      7 months agoReport

      Interestingly, without the 14th Amendment, the US Supreme Court would have had a harder time "incorporating" the Bill of Rights to limit and interfere with state laws that give no such individual protections.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Yavan
    Lv 7
    7 months ago

    The 25th amendment is the one we should be looking at right now.

    • Mike
      Lv 7
      7 months agoReport

      For bernie

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Jenny
    Lv 6
    7 months ago

    Both are clear especially if you add in the commentary of those writing it. The 14th was specifically to enfranchise former slaves, not to allow foreign nationals a means of scamming us.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    I am a free speech absolutist, pro-Second Amendment, etc., but the Constitution needs some tweaks and we need a transition government for this to happen.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    7 months ago

    We in a social frame of mind are conscious that LAWS must be written and remade.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.