Constitution

Do yourself a favor and read the 14th amendment and it's background before you embarrass yourself further, it was specifically to grant citizenship to freed slaves after spoiled sport Confederate losers devised so called "Black codes". It excluded Native Americans because they are actually governed as sovereign nations. The Constitution is easy, and unlike what Obama said that it contained "negative rights" which tells the government what it can't do, it contains positive rights because it tells the government what it can't do to harm you. Fear not damagedgood, Trump is actually right and simply enforcing the Constitution, and if we want, there is a process to change it.

The 2nd amendment didn't specifically allow ar15 but here we are

Muskets were the modern military arms of the time, so your argument is invalid. The 1st Amendment includes state-of-the-art tech like computers, internet and personal printers so don't say that the 2nd Amendment didn't likewise include yet-to-be-invented tech. If you still don't believe me, google 'Puckle gun'.

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.
Key words- "the right of the people"
Don't forget the founders knew that kings had the guns and cannons and the people had pitchforks and rocks. Who would win? The kings also owned everything, and if a starving peasant killed one of the king's deer to feed his family, the king could kill or imprison him. Look at 20th century history to see what happens when a government takes away the citizen's guns. It never ends well for the people. Never. If you don't like guns, don't own one, but because you chose to not own, that doesn't preclude the right of another citizen to own one. Not to smack you over the head, but to extend your logic, the 1st amendment didn't specifically allow the internet, BIC pens or high speed printing- we must go back to quill pens and manual printing presses immediately.

I am pretty sure can't change the constitution or the amendments all by himself. Nice try

You don't understand, the Constitution never allowed "anchor babies" It has always been clear that the children of Ambassadors born in the US are not US citizens, nor have US Ambassadors and their foreign born children been permitted citizenship in foreign countries- John McCain being a high profile example, born in Panama, and Ted Cruz, born in Canada to an American mother- he's a US citizen). Obama was always a US citizen because his mother was American (the birther argument was started by the Hillary campaign in 2008- check it out). Your beliefs don't supersede facts. I think you do want the truth, but may I suggest your current sources are not guiding you to it.

OK. Good luck

Same to you my friend.

Sorry bro, you got trolled. That guy is most likely an alt account sent here to stir the pot. He probably knows you're right but doesn't care.

Who knows who else might read the comments and start asking questions. Thanks for commenting

I was one of them.

Even though I know who most of the trolls are I still engage them for that same reason. Great responses.

Doesn't abortion infringe on the babies rights?

YES!
Can you just imagine if all the aborted fetus's were alive today?

Most of them would be black, just exactly as Margaret Sanger wanted, she wanted to use abortion to eliminate "inferior" minorities.

It has nothing to do with race for me. Nothing at all. It is all about not forcing unwanted unloved babies

So , just hypothetically, would you volunteer for an adult abortion to curb over population? Not trying to be snarky.

If I didn't want to live I would.
Assisted suicide should be legal everywhere.
What did I do to curb overpopulation? I have no offspring. I am not just talk

We'll never know how many Ted Bundy's etc etc etc. Overpopulation is a problem. Pollution is a problem. You aren't taking into account those not being aborted not being able to abort compounding the problem. Your precious grandchild has a chance. An unwanted unloved child has a much lower chance of success.
The world is a better place with abortion

Yeah. #1 is the baby is UNWANTED. otherwise why abort
#2 for me is overpopulation. we have enough humans on this planet without forcing the birth of UNWANTED humans.

Over population is a fascination myth, statistically every human being could live in Texas with a population density the same as Manhattan, which is less than places like Delhi and Peking. Starvation in the world would be zero if we eliminated every despotic government that uses starvation to control the masses. How many Jonas Salk's, Frederick Douglas's, Madame Curie's, Mother Theresa's and Albert Einstein's and more of each sex have been aborted? We'll never know

Not everyone is intellectually selective about their constitutional rights. I came to the logical conclusion that life must begin at conception, not some arbitrary date after that. The discussion about "viability" is preposterous on it's face because virtually every human being aborted would have been viable if allowed to come to full term. I agree with our laws against murder (taking another human being's life) and conclude that law should extend to the most vulnerable and defenseless of our population, unborn, child, handicapped, elderly, etc. Pregnancy is no mystery, we have known for decades how it happens and we have the ability to prevent it for recreational purposes, cheap, accessible and simply requires some responsibility. As for the "cases of rape", my daughter was raped, and became pregnant. As we discussed her options she said, "Regardless of the situation, this child is still 1/2 me, I will not have an abortion." The beautiful girl was born, has been dearly loved and is among my precious grand children, I would concur my daughter made a great choice. Do I condemn those who have chosen abortion? No. The women I know who made that decision are all tortured by the decision, even dozens of years later. All I can do is tell them there is no going back, but find forgiveness from your God, from your science or from yourself, but forgive yourself and move forward a bit wiser.
As for gay marriage, I've known numerous gay couples in the heart of redneck America for over 40 years. They were always accepted as live and let live, they overcame every so called denial of marital rights by estate planning, last wills and living wills, joint accounts and every other privilege of marriage. In an era where no one is encouraged to marry to raise a family, just live together, co-habitate, shack up and there is no stigma, why is gay marriage so essential? When we change the definitions of centuries old concepts like murder, theft, truthfulness, and marriage it doesn't bode well. If it's okay to kill an unborn child then it's okay to kill anyone. If it's okay for a gay couple to marry, then it's okay to marry a horse. How far do things go? Why not leave marriage alone and create a protective designation that is specific to gay couples making a life long commitment? Why agitate our fellow citizens when we have the intellectual capacity to create a new and appropriate designation that doesn't shake the core values of others.

Good for you and your daughter.
I know this will seem insensitive, and it probably is, but was she raped by someone of the same race and/or ethnicity? If no...
Would she make the same choice if raped by someone of a different race?
Just curious and if you don't want to answer I understand.
Peace

No problem, the perp was of a different race. This daughter is incredibly smart, beautiful kid in every respect, a great addition to the human race, and I don't just say that because I'm her grandpa

Awesome!

except 2nd amendment was interpreted until the mid 1800's

"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."

Key words:

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.

Do you really need Google Translate to understand what it says?

Come on vagabound, this is plain English. This part is the key component of the amendment/Bill of Rights
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "people" always means the citizens all through the Constitution, it never means the army/militia. "Shall not be infringed" is extremely clear that means you can't tweak this right.
"Security of a free State" means the freedom of the citizens, not the government. If you would study the Federalist papers and various other writings about the history of the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights you would understand it specifically limits what government can do to us. If you haven't graduated from Middle School yet I can forgive your ignorance, if you have I encourage you to continue your education without indoctrination. This sentence is so plain, clear and simple that it's embarrassing to know there are people who try to manipulate it and people who can't get beyond the perversion of what it says. If you don't want a gun, you are not forced to own one like Switzerland. You can gather with like minded people in your own communities, but you have no right to infringe on anyone's right to own arms (which includes everything that a person can use for self defense, not just guns).

^ tl;dr

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.

Okay, I admit, you are making me guess. Are you trying to emphasize Militia? Here's a reasonable definition of Militia- During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were members of the militia. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. Minutemen are probably a good example of the spirit of the amendment.

Historically women also participated in the militia and the American Revolution. And blacks too, a black citizen was the first man killed in the Revolution at the Boston Massacre.

The militia being the people.

and by that logic 2nd amendment doesn't protect gun rights. Your logic has to aply to all not just selectively

Logic can eat a bullet on that one.