Pavlov to President Trump: Two thumbs up.

My eyes are moist with tears of happiness at the newfound respect the Democrats have for the Constitution, at least this week.  I took all of 2 minutes to get some samples from Twitter and use them as mementos in the future when the Democrats want to go ahead and complain once again the Second Amendment needs to me ignored or discarded.

 

8 Replies to “Pavlov to President Trump: Two thumbs up.”

  1. The WSJ has a good editorial on this today. The key question is: what does “…and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” mean?
    The editorial argues that Trump believes it’s equivalent to “owing allegiance to”, i.e., being a citizen, native or naturalized — and that this interpretation is not the right one. They go on to say that the clause intends to exclude foreign diplomats and (at the time) members of Indian tribes not subject to US law.
    I also saw the comment (doesn’t seem to be in that editorial, I can’t find the reference right now) that the exclusion is meant to apply also to occupying foreign armies. But that begs the question: what would you call the large organized group, a large fraction of which is young men, currently marching towards our border?

  2. OK, once again,

    It is not the action being taken, it is the political party of the person taking the action that is the source of the outrage.

  3. NPC credo: Orange man bad

    Everything he does is literally the end of the world. When Obama spent months saying he had “a pen and phone”, that was just peachy keen. Because what CBMTTek says about parties being the root cause.

  4. It really is amazing isn’t it. These people interpret “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States” in the broadest possible way so that that a woman can walk across the border 39 weeks and 6 days pregnant and give birth and her child is a US citizen.

    But…

    “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” isn’t an individual right and doesn’t apply to semi-auto rifles, handguns, or anything that holds more than 10 rounds of ammo.

  5. How come they didn’t say anything when Obama did all kinds of illegal stuff with executive orders.the libtards are afraid of a supreme Court decision that says illegal immigrants are not covered

    1. Because… Obama!

      No, seriously. Why is Farrakahn hating Jews nothing more than free speech and freedom of Religion, but the President moving the Embassy to Jerusalem triggers hatred and violent acts against Jews.

      Why is it OK for Weinstein to operate a thriving “casting couch”, but not OK for a Conservative Supreme Court nominee to have had a bad case of hormones when he was 17?

      How is it OK for Ellen to make millions, but not OK for Coulter to do the same?

      Because it is not the action, it is the political affiliation of the person taking the action that is the root cause of the offense.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick. Also, You can use html code to decorate your comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.