a quick way to shut down any moran who wants to undo the 14th Amendment:

[corkhead]

Apply their argument to the 2nd Amendment and dish it back at them. Ask them if the 2nd Amendment is just as obsolete and open to being rescinded.

[RubyDuby in GA]

1. I've been telling them we shouldn't stop with those just born here

I've been telling them we should take it to the next step and also not give citizenship to anyone born outside the US borders even if both parents are Amercians born in Kansas. Then I casually mention that I think this applies to John McCain and all other army brats and then I ask them why they hate our military so much. I take a quick look at their dumbstruck faces, smile and walk away. :evilgrin:

[Donnachaidh]

2. isn't the 14th also the one used for corporate *personhood*?

Personally, I'd like to see THAT decision ripped out by the roots. And also, can't THAT be used to get these corporate asskissers to back down -- a threat to also go after *personhood*?

[niceypoo]

3. I ask them...

...why do republicans always want to replace the constitution with RW talking points?

[liberal N proud]

4. Tell them we should make it retroactive back to 1776

That would make everyone of us not related to the founding fathers or Native American Indian a non citizen. It will shut them up.

Most people can't prove they were related to someone here before the revolution.

[kctim]

7. Really?

Is one a citizen of a piece of dirt or a citizen of a country?

[hfojvt]

5. Why is it only morons who want to undo birth-citizenship?

and why do you think they will all care about the 2nd amendment?

I definitely think the 2nd amendment is obsolete just based on the technology of the guns at the time. Just look at the Paoli massacre. The British slaughtered a bunch of American troops. Both the Americans and British were armed with rifles, but the British killed the Americans using bayonets. The arms people had a right to in 1781 were not nearly as deadly as the ones we have today.

[Statistical]

10. Is the first obsolete based on the advancedment of technology?

Firearms aren't as deadly as the media portrays them. Overwhelming majority of people shot with firearms survive the injury.
That wasn't the case 200 years ago (mainly due to infection both from the bullet and from surgery).

Per CDC in 2007 (latest year available)

All methods & causes
78622 injured by firearms, 31224 killed by firearms. Thus total of 109846 people shot with firearms resulting in a mortality rate of ~28%. If shot you have a 1 in 4 chance of dying.

However this is somewhat misleading because it covers all forms. Breaking it down.....

Accidental injury/death
17,216 injuries + 889 deaths = 18,105 incidents. 5% mortality.

Violence (both criminal and lawful)
57,609 injuries + 12,983 deaths = 705,592 incidents, 18% mortality

Suicide
3797 injuries + 17352 deaths = 21,149 incidents, 82% mortality

Given suicide is a person choice and I guarantee a 2 century old 0.50 rifle is very effective at ending your life lets look at all injuries and deaths except suicide in aggregate.

Non Suicide
74,825 injuries + 13872 deaths = 88,697 incidents, 23% mortality

Your claim that weapons today are more lethal is simply not proven. While the potential lethality has increased with technology so has transportation (can more rapidly transport the injured), protection (body armor), and medical technology.

[hfojvt]

12. so these 8 people were killed by one guy

because they did not have bayonets or sulfa? 8 out of 10. I do not like those odds at all.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38535909/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts

here we have 32 out of 57. Agian, not an overwhelming majority of surivors.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

I know there are doubtless other less sensational stories, but it still seems to me that those people would not have had much luck defending themselves with bayonets.

[Statistical]

13. Anectdotes vs Statistical data.

Generally speaking basing laws on anecdotal "evidence" is a foolish game.

You made a claim that the 2nd doesn't apply because technology has made arms more effective.

1) That is a foolish claim. No other right protected by the Constitution is rescinded due to technology
2) The claim is false. Firearms are not exceptionally lethal. Roughly 1 in 4 gunshots results in a fatality. They are no more (and likely much less) lethal than they were in 1776. Technology in firearms has been compensated by technology in other areas.

[kctim]

6. THAT is a quick way to shut them down?

Wouldn't they just reply with 'why work so hard to keep the 14th intact while working to destroy the 2nd?'

The only way to shut them down would be to ask "why they don't want to protect ALL of our rights?" Or maybe "why they feel it is ok to pick and choose which rights others should have?"

[dixiegrrrrl]

8. No comments will work, because the issue is not really about the amendment.

The issue is about racism.
As indeed most issues are in this country.

Ever since the projected Census data came out a few years back predicting that whites
across the planet as well as this country, would be a minority soon,
the RW has been having a shit fit.
Their blogs and letters to editor are full of gloomy predictions of this dreaded population shift.
One particularly oft repeated "statistic" showed up in our weekly RW owned newspaper as an
editorial: " In 20 years Germany will have twice as many Muslims as whites".
(Note the code word "Muslims" for non-whites)

Apparently no matter how fast we kill or herd off minority populations, here and in other countries, we are losing the pigment race, and boy howdy, does that terrify the shark brained rich, privileged, mostly male elite.

Everything the Neo-cons have done ( too successfully, I might add) for the last 30 years can be explained by racism. The destruction of education, jobs, homes, has removed the rungs of upward mobility for the next generations, which, to Neo-con eyes, will consist of "too many" non-white people.
If looked at through the lens of racism, the pattern of events over the last few decades
becomes startlingly clear.

(edited for lack of caffeine coherence)

[laughingliberal]

11. +1 nt

[slackmaster]

9. Yes, that is a very good example of hypocrisy on the right.

Particularly in light of the recent Heller and McDonald rulings.

K&R for an astute observation.

:kick: