181
Supreme court justices appear skeptical of move to end birthright citizenship as Trump attends arguments
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 01 Apr 2026
181 points (98.9% liked)
News
36915 readers
2787 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
"What was really meant was..." is how they turned the second amendment, clearly about forming a militia for national defense, into being about personal self defense.
The first half I made bold is what the second half is based on. It is about having an armed society so it can be a well regulated militia. Now those same words just mean people get to have guns for whatever reason they want and not because they are part of a militia.
In this case, they are pretending that "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" means something completely fictional based on what they want it to mean blatantly contradicting over a century of clear reinforcement of what it literally means.
That's not how the 2nd is taken at all. The founders had literally just fought and won a war against a tyrannical government using privately owned arms.
Hell even Jefferson's quote from one of his letters points this out: "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants" .
Do you think he is saying that people should fight rebellions with pitchforks?
Right now is the time to be getting armed, not trying to disarm us.
I quoted the amendment, which I am all in favor of. In fact, I am in favor of well regulated ownership by anyone who can pass a gun safety course. While I am in favor of background checks to reduce the chances of someone buying a gun when they are not eligible due to a violent felony or similar reasons (part of that well regulated thing), I am against tracking those background checks or a gun registry.
My dislike of stupid court rulings that contradict the amendment is based on what is written and putting it on individuals who want to play rambo doesn't mean I don't like the basic concept.
The well regulated part means in working order. Not that the government gets to decide who can and cannot own arms.
If you're ok with that, then you're ok with the current regime trying to label LGBTQ+ people as a mental illness, so they can deny them the right to bear arms.
That's why you shouldn't be ok with it. When a group that's like the current regime is in power they're going to try and pull shit like that. Which they did btw and even the NRA(puke) was against it.
But the ruling didn't contradict the amendment.
Hamilton Federalist paper #28:
This is what the founders thought of the 2nd amendment. That the government should not be the ones with a monopoly on force.
k