If AOC becomes president, and issues an executive order rescinding the 2nd Amendment, does the new SCOTUS ruling mean a judge could not issue an injunction to stop guns from being confiscated?

>>509267565 (OP)
She will become "based" and give everyone more guns screencap this.

trump is doing his shit in spite of the 14th amendment so yeah. the contitution doesn't mean shit anymore

>>509267787
gta6?

>>509267565 (OP)
She'll never be president

>>509267565 (OP)
Only in specific districts

>>509267852
>She'll never be president
It's a hypothetical question

>>509267852
She will DEFINITELY become president.

I will not be disarmed by those cunts

>>509267565 (OP)
It would be something really gay like stopping AR-15s from being sold.
Then there would be nothing anyone could do but a really long court battle that would take years because of the SCOTUS ruling.

>>509268191
>It would be something really gay like stopping AR-15s from being sold.
>Then there would be nothing anyone could do but a really long court battle that would take years because of the SCOTUS ruling.
If the 2nd amendment is rescinded, you no longer have the right to keep and bear arms - confiscation.

>>509268265
What a slamhog.

>>509267565 (OP)
Sorry, we don't make women Presidents in this country. It's wrong and it's unconstitutional. Try Europe.

>>509268296
who's is going to enforce that lmao?

>>509268377
If Gavin Newsome becomes president, and issues an executive order rescinding the 2nd Amendment, does the new SCOTUS ruling mean a judge could not issue an injunction to stop guns from being confiscated?

>>509268406
>who's is going to enforce that lmao?
Homeland Security

>>509268296
There are various ways to do things without rescinding the 2nd amendment - just like how California has done things with firearms.
A President could do such things.
Now with the SCOTUS ruling it would take much time to unwind those executive orders.

>>509268296
Just specific weapons you can still buy small guns
only military, officers and security persons can buy the big guns.

never joined the military buy a simple 9mm gun

>>509268508
Thank you for correcting your wildly unamerican comment. Now that we have that low IQ shit out of the way, the answer is that the President can't issue an EO that rescinds a constitutional amendment, it's not a valid order, it's no different than screaming into the dark in an unlit room.

>>509268607
>Thank you for correcting your wildly unamerican comment. Now that we have that low IQ shit out of the way, the answer is that the President can't issue an EO that rescinds a constitutional amendment, it's not a valid order, it's no different than screaming into the dark in an unlit room.
Read the 14th amendment, it's happening right now

>>509268017
>>509268054

>>509267565 (OP)
There's an old picture of her people posted here, but I haven't seen in it awhile. The sunset is behind her I think and she's wearing a white/grey tank top, I'm pretty sure, and smiling. It's a nice one, but haven't seen it, and couldn't find it myself. if someone knows this one, please post it.

>>509267565 (OP)
No because we already have SC rulings about what the second amendment means. So like she could try but there would be a lot of dead cops.

>>509268705
Incorrect. Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is simply wrong. This is because you have been misinformed by propagandists who tell lies for a living. Probably the same propagandists who falsely led you to believe there can be a female President of the United States.

>>509268885
>No because we already have SC rulings about what the second amendment means. So like she could try but there would be a lot of dead cops.
We also have SC rulings about the 14th amendment, Trump is still rescinding birthright citizenship

>>509267565 (OP)
There is no way the President of the United States can rescind or excise parts of the Constitution of the United States of America.

>>509267789
There's no slaves in the U.S., except the ones Trump is deporting. So no, you're an idiot. That's what doesn't mean shit anymore. Anything a lefty has to say. They are all arctic level IQs

>>509268940
>Incorrect. Your interpretation of the 14th Amendment is simply wrong. This is because you have been misinformed by propagandists who tell lies for a living. Probably the same propagandists who falsely led you to believe there can be a female President of the United States.
All 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.
What part am i misrepresenting?

>>509268980
>There is no way the President of the United States can rescind or excise parts of the Constitution of the United States of America.
Trump is doing it right now with birthright citizenship.

>>509268017
unimpressive

>>509269107
And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There is no reason to include that qualification unless the subject is part of another jurisdiction, as illegal aliens are.

>>509269231
>And subject to the jurisdiction thereof. There is no reason to include that qualification unless the subject is part of another jurisdiction, as illegal aliens are.
2nd Amendment only applies to muskets. All other guns are to be confiscated.

don't know, but I'm voting for her in 2028

>>509269339
Except the Second Amendment does not say that, you made it up. The Second Amendment says "arms". I know English is hard, especially when you're a low IQ brownoid.

>>509267565 (OP)
Ill vote for her ,Bernie's too old and Zorahn sadly wasnt born here

>>509269426
I'm explaining how things can be re-interpenetrated, like how people are now re-interpenetrating the 14th amendment

>>509269513
No you're not, you're making things up that the amendment does not say. That's is not interpretation, it is fabrication.

>>509267565 (OP)
>does the new SCOTUS ruling mean a judge could not issue an injunction to stop guns from being confiscated?
No. It only means a nationwide injunction cannot be issued based on one specific district court judge's whim. Injunctions are still available, and even nationwide injunctions are still on the table given that the underlying conduct rises to the level of justifying them.

>>509269565
>No you're not, you're making things up that the amendment does not say. That's is not interpretation, it is fabrication.
This is what it says.
All 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.

>>509269721
Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If all it requires is being born here, why include that qualification? What is the point of it if it is totally negated by the precedent qualification? That would be irrational and irrationalism is not how you interpret the constitution.

>>509269791
>Subject to the jurisdiction thereof. If all it requires is being born here, why include that qualification? What is the point of it if it is totally negated by the precedent qualification? That would be irrational and irrationalism is not how you interpret the constitution.
No, it means if you are subject to the laws, like you have to obey the laws, which they do.

>>509267565 (OP)
Who would do the confiscating?

>>509269940
>Who would do the confiscating?
Homeland Security

>>509268607
TruI. did it.

You can't stop the 2nd amendment. All the faggot shit you see is side stepping it. Increasing cost, suing gun makers all that shit. Shall not be infringed isn't optional. And nothing Trump has done is against the constitution, he's enforcing it.

Madam President

>>509269864
There is no historical basis for that, it's just another thing that you made up, and you didn't answer my question. If all it takes is being born here, why include that qualification as well? We already know everybody has to obey the law, that's a given. What would be the purpose of laws otherwise? It wasn't written to remind everyone that laws have to be followed, it was written to limit the sort of person who can be born a citizen, not to expand it to everyone who was born here, but to limit tt to people who were born here AND are supposed to be here, i.e. subject to the jurisdiction of this country, not the foreign country from which they hail.

>>509267565 (OP)
Only one thing necessary to security of the free state, and it ain't some jew lawyer from Harvard.

>>509270067
Trump is rescinding the 14th Amendment birthright citizenship through executive order.
If one president can rescind the 14th amendment, another president can rescind the 2nd amendment

>>509270214
He did no such thing. Your interpretation is still wrong.

>>509270114
A child born here is obviously subject to the laws. Or are you saying that children born here to non-citizens don't have to follow laws?

>>509270317
Doesn't say laws, it says jurisdiction. They are subject to the jurisdiction of their home country, not this one. They are, essentially, guests. At best.

>>509270377
If they are born here, this is their home country

>>509270477
Nonsense.

>>509270214
>another president can rescind the 2nd amendment
I don't even know what the 14th amendment is because I don't care to go higher than 10. All I know is 2nd amendment ain't a law, it's a threat. What good is an empty threat? About near as good as a law without a lawman.

>>509270592
>I don't even know what the 14th amendment is because I don't care to go higher than 10. All I know is 2nd amendment ain't a law, it's a threat. What good is an empty threat? About near as good as a law without a lawman.
14th amendment - All 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.

>>509270705
They are not subject to this jurisdiction, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign countries.

>>509267565 (OP)
Only a retarded non-American could post such a nonsensical sentence.
Kill yourself immediately and spare the world the further shame of your existence.

>>509270758
>They are not subject to this jurisdiction, they are subject to the jurisdiction of their foreign countries.
So if they are arrested, they cannot be tried in US courts? Is that what you're saying? Because if they can be tried in US courts, which they are every day, they are subject to this jurisdiction.

>>509270937
The proper remedy is their removal. Why try them for anything? Why not just scoop them up and send them home? Your question inheres the assumption that they are living their lives here, enjoying a residency they have no right to enjoy.

>>509267565 (OP)
I’m gonna jerk off to the President.

>>509267565 (OP)
you are a disingenuous nigger and i hope you die from aids soon.

Are we really this bored that you have to shitpost this thread? There's literally nothing else you could be talking about?

>>509271072
>The proper remedy is their removal. Why try them for anything? Why not just scoop them up and send them home? Your question inheres the assumption that they are living their lives here, enjoying a residency they have no right to enjoy.
Which has been common practice ever since the 14th amendment was passed.

>>509267565 (OP)
That's not how any of this works and the fact you don't know that suggest you're retarded, a shill, or likely both.
The constitution has been pretty well discarded completely at this point and this is ironically, a slight correction towards it's intention.

>>509267565 (OP)
Double brandy on the rocks. Chop Chop toots *spank*