Lord Ratner

So about the Keltec PR57... It's kinda great. It's *very* thin, so thin I think it will be more comfortable to carry than my P365X. The 5.7 round has stupidly low recoil, and 21 rounds feels like you are shooting a magic gun with unlimited ammo. It didn't take long to get the hang of the clip loading system, but you do have to live with reloading after every "magazine" since there isn't one... I guess you could buy a bunch of the clips and preload them, then it would only be a few seconds to shove another 20 rounds in. I've only put 150 rounds through it, so it'll take a few more trips to the range to be sure, but for $400 it's a pretty cool gun and quite fun to shoot. I think I'll probably get an optic for it if I decide to carry it. But boy is it ugly 🤣😂

See above. The Senate may not interpret the Constitution, but they damn well do write it. Including the 14th amendment.

I know you know the law well enough to know that when the Supreme Court is answering a constitutional question, they go back to the framers, including any of their writings or recorded conversations. The Senate was responsible for framing the 14th amendment, and their conversations are meticulously chronicled. And they are 100% clear about their intent. Not even native Americans born in the United States were considered citizens by birth, and a separate law in the twenties had to be passed in order to make them so. This will be a slam dunk in the Supreme Court that got rid of Roe and Chevron. Did you think I meant the current Senate? My bad if I was unclear.

Boy are you in for a shock when you actually look into the Senate conversations regarding the 14th amendment. Spoiler alert, it explicitly does not include anyone subject to the jurisdiction of another country. Regroup, reassess, then reattack.

Trump is a media guy from a previous generation. Hollywood is a glamorous memory full of him on the red carpet and fucking a bunch of wannabe starlets. It's classic Trump, taking something good and pushing it to an extreme that is going to end up sabotaging the entire movement.

I think Eisenhower would have thrown up in his mouth if he knew how bloated the command structure had become. Bravo.

*Proceeds to disagree with the liberals on the core point* Well stated. Deportation is not punishment, imprisonment, or torture. If you show up to an airport without a passport, you get put back on a plane to where you came from. No trial. Being sent home requires no process, due or otherwise. Sending illegals to a Salvadorian jail *is* a completely different story. As for the posted interview, Boomer covered it. If you can't handle context, don't follow politics. They are all liars, Trump included, and every interview is a game. That doesn't mean any interpretation is valid. Of course you once again left out the key part of the response, where he talks about legal interpretation. And how it is absolutely not his job to do that. Thank you for proving my point. Context matters. His supporters, which I am around 60% of the time, have often pointed to his instincts, not his intelligence. That has some pretty huge downsides, But the reason you guys aren't getting through to anyone is because you offer no realistic alternative. No Republican or Democrat politician in my lifetime has done fuck all about illegal immigration. Every time it's been some preachy sermon about due process, or the cost of picking lettuce, or the humanity of the dreamers. Yet nothing gets done, and the problem continues to get worse. The people are able to intrinsically understand whether an issue is right or wrong, and illegal immigration is wrong. Support something that is wrong for long enough, regardless of the justification, and eventually you will lose the people. Especially when that thing starts to directly impact their lives. Even now you guys are arguing for "due process" in a situation that was clearly and obviously never contemplated by the Constitution. You want to destroy the Constitution? Try to apply it to situations that it wasn't meant to handle. There are people on the left trying to do exactly that, and they are quite open about their disdain for the limitations imposed by the Constitution. The rest of you are just being taken along for the ride. Sorry Boomer6, I don't think that was 10 paragraphs but it was still pretty long. I'll try to sketch some drawings next time for the fighter pilots to follow along 😂🤣

The Claremont Institute submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court regarding birthright citizenship. You could look up the exact brief if you want to read it with all of its legal mumbo jumbo, but on their website they have a civilian friendly version that makes the exact same points. This is an issue I had never done any reading on, but their case is so much more comprehensive and definite than I expected. https://americanmind.org/features/the-case-against-birthright-citizenship-2/birthright-citizenship-game-on/ Of course you never really know what's going to happen with the supreme Court, but this case seems a lot less nebulous than Roe v Wade or the Chevron deference case. This alone would be a legal victory that justifies all of the usual Trump antics we've seen up to this point.

"They are obviously going to follow what the supreme Court said." Keep trying, bub. You'll get it right eventually.

At some point you are going to have to be honest with your whining. I know that day isn't today, but seriously, this is about as stupid as saying Obama thought there were more than 50 states. The question in this interview is obviously about whether the due process of the Constitution applies to the deportation of illegals. You either didn't listen to the interview, or you are too stupid to interpret a simple conversation. Or you're just a bitter liar.

It'll work this time...

Turning Biff's guard application letter into a song is a bit unsettling.

Define "realistic way." It's a fairly ironic thing for you to say considering that in two posts you make this suggestion: Exactly which system do you exist under? Are you suggesting that the legislature create a new form of the judiciary that is not subject to appeal or review? Would this fast track system exist without a path to the supreme Court? Exactly what is a "fast track court" and how much funding do they require? Do the Republicans get to pick the judges for these courts? Would the illegal immigrants still have the right to taxpayer-funded legal counsel? Are we going to fund "fast track attorneys" to handle this process? There certainly aren't enough public defenders to handle 20 million immigration cases "quick(er)", so would these fast-track attorneys be required only two weeks of law school instead of the full 3 to 4 years? Personally, I love the idea of an immigration court with no right to appeal and Trump-selected judges that will run through ~ 5,000 cases per day. Unfortunately, even then it would take 11 years with no holidays or weekends to process the 20 million illegal immigrants floating around our country. Now, who's not addressing things in a realistic way again? There is, flat out, no realistic way to provide millions and millions of illegal immigrants the due process that we would consider constitutional for an American citizen. That is an inescapable reality. The progressives are making this argument because they know the only solution under this context is amnesty, because we will bankrupt ourselves before we are able to process that many people through our current legal system. As I said before, I am 100% in support of due process for any illegal immigrant that we are attempting to put into prison. But sending you back to the country you came from is not punishment. It is simply a response, and a rational one. And if you as an illegal alien parent decide to take your American citizen child (anchor baby) with you, that is not equivalent to deporting an American citizen. That is a mother choosing to stay with her child. There is a very real debate around the criminal illegal aliens that we sent to a Salvadorian prison. Unless they were Salvadorian in the first place, in which case, I don't care what El Salvador does with them once we sent them back. That tactic needs Supreme Court review. You just don't like the answers you're getting. That doesn't equal dodging the question.

Also no one here is defending any of the shit that he's crying about. Which gets to the real point, he's just upset that we don't care as much about those things as he does. Combining the arguments of 30 different people, and then layering on conservative news media as though that somehow represents the views of anyone here, then combining all of that into one hyper-conservative Boogeyman, and naming it "you guys." And then getting upset that no one is willing to take up the mantle of the fictional debate opponent he's created. Like, what am I supposed to say about Pam Bondi's obviously stupid tweet? Politicians have been overstating their accomplishments for as long as I've been alive plus a few thousand years. Yawn.

I'm fine (and in favor of) more punishment based on the outcome of the infraction. But at a minimum I want a permanent loss of license based on the decision. If a guy gets 2 DUI's for driving his tractor down an empty country road and never hits anyone or anything, he doesn't deserve jail for life. But he shouldn't drive anymore, ever again. Can the Mods spin this out into a thread called "DUI law" to keep this thread focused on the hero we lost?