Yesterday, the New York Times was busy trying to rewrite the Declaration of Independence.
And they are always busy trying to rewrite the Bill of Rights.
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
Progressives tell us that the militia meant the military, even though the Virginia Bill of Rights specifically says the exact opposite.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
George Mason explicitly defined the meaning of militia.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
The founding fathers understood the need for the citizenry to be armed to defend the US from tyranny.
“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
–James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
“No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
– Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
” … to disarm the people – that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.“
– George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…. “
–Samuel Adams
“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.”
That was printed in large font on the shirt I wore yesterday.
You would think this debate over the 2nd Amendment would have long since been put to bed, but sadly, it still rages – unnecessarily so. I’ll see if I can find a link to what the NY Times had to say about the Declaration yesterday.
Meanwhile, posting this to Twitter, Facebook, and Google+. Thanks, Steven.
Try this link:
http://news.yahoo.com/reading-declaration-independence-wrong-144302368.html
Settled? As Global Warming is ‘settled science?’ Or that Darwin settled the issue of racial inferiority with his theory of evolution? Are you going to “argue with science” or will you roll over and expose your throat and belly?
“Science” settled that the Titanic was unsinkable, after all…
“…peacable…” What about responsible? Maybe your insurance carrier should evaluate the risk of your owning and operating a gun they same way they do with owning and operating cars, businesses. The government isn’t allowed or obviously able to keep felons, morons, straw buyers, and lunatics away from guns, maybe State Farm can. No insurance, no gun. Not perfect, but possibly better.
You are about 10 times more likely to be killed by a texting teenager than by a rifle in the US. Phone purchases should require huge insurance policies.
Great idea! Make people take out insurance before they can procreate! God only knows what lunatic may be produced from questionable pairings. And why should the rest of us be forced to pay the price? I think that a minimum of ten million dollars of liability coverage per child is not unreasonable. But then I don’t have any kids…
The texting teenager is “insured” already as part of the regulations required for legal operation of a motor vehicle–it’s just a matter of how much “insurance” according to gator69. The power to tax is the power to destroy, only instead of taxes levied by Congress, now Big Business sets your tax rate. Progress, I guess!
So, has the power to insure become the power to destroy? Insurance is the new taxation–Mafia thugs used to be very aggressive “insurance” salesmen.
When did I mention texting or driving? Try again.
You didn’t mention texting or driving–but you did propose setting up insurance companies as agents of a eugenics program–by making people take out insurance before they can procreate. The “minimum of ten million dollars of liability coverage per child” implies that “questionable pairings” may be forced to pay more–if they can’t pay, then their offspring are illegal! Then what?
For a gun range with a million dollar liability policy, the annual fee is something like $25,000–depending upon factors like training of range personnel, clients using the range, location of the range…for a private club the annual coverage is something like $8000, and again it depends.
So how much PER YEAR would a kid cost? And when would the premiums stop? I can’t imagine insurance companies giving up their cash cows. A quarter million per kid per year? Just for liability? What happens when the parents have the kid, pay a couple of years, and then quit?
I don’t have any kids either–but the program you suggest runs afoul of the United Nations definition of genocide:
Article 2
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
•(a) Killing members of the group;
•(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
•(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
•(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
•(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
http://www.hrweb.org/legal/genocide.html
Not that the United Nations means that much right now.
What I ‘proposed’ was sarcasm, aimed at the comment from nonreality65. I do hope you understand.
I thought it might be sarcasm, but I answered sarcasm with something nastier–factoids.
You were right to challenge “no insurance, no gun” with “no insurance, no child.” I might be out of line to demonstrate that taxing or “insuring” either is a bad idea.
For example, prior to 1934 the National Rifle Association was on the band wagon with licensing every handgun owner and registering every legal handgun in the USA. Had FDR’s attorney general, Homer Cummings, taken this victory, all handguns would be treated as machine guns are: some states ban them outright, and the federal government has a record on all legal machine guns. Good Ole Boy Homer wanted to eradicate the scourge of handguns and was bothered by potentially violating the Second Amendment–the National Rifle Association of the period wasn’t until Homer announced that he was going to tax handguns out of existence, just as he taxed legal machine guns out of existence. The $200 fee in 1934 dollars equates to $2784.62 today–and originally the NRA wanted this to be an annual fee with requirements for “secure storage” and annual inspections (wow–Fourth Amendment violations!). When Homer and the NRA fell out, the latter squabbled and fussed and organized a letter-writing campaign and handguns were removed from the National Firearms Act of 1934–but not handgun substitutes (sawed off rifles and shotguns).
Just think about how arrogant progressives sabotage their agenda! Had Attorney General Cummings compromised with a $5 or even a $20 handgun tax, it would have gutted the Second Amendment. I have to put AG Cummings in my heroes’ hall because his Progressive-induced blindness preserved my firearms rights. Thank you, Homer!
There is nothing nasty about facts, or truth. But they are water to the witch. 😉
Don’t forget that doubting Global Warming or failure to give blind loyalty to the President and his Party constitutes insanity!
And the President is the Command Authority for nuclear weapons release…
Interesting proposal — but it has some very disturbing implications. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that gun owners actually ARE a higher risk than non-gun owners, and that insurance companies use that extra risk to justify higher insurance rates. OK, so far… but remember that we are talking about an individual’s natural right to self defense. Once we establish that insurance companies can reasonably increase rates for people who have violated no laws but who simply act on their rights, we have a precedent. African-Americans have a much higher rate of arrest and incarceration. Obviously, they ought to have every right to be African-American without having to pay extra or be denied the right to do business on the same basis as everyone else. If peaceable gun owners can be charged extra even though they have a right to own arms and have violated no laws, then African-Americans — people who have a perfect natural right to be African-American and have violated no laws — can just as reasonably be charged extra for being black.
I disapprove of that line of thinking. It is wrong to penalize people for something that is a natural right.
Please note that I am NOT calling you a racist; I think that you are most likely NOT a racist. I am only pointing out what happens once we start to penalize rights.
What part of shall not be infringed is too difficult to understand?
Owning and operating a car is not a right; it is an activity morally and legally regulated by the State. Such regulation includes the requirement to obtain a State-issued driver’s license, and to maintain insurance on the vehicle.
But even setting that aside: what, do you figure, is the actual risk to another posed by the average, lawful firearm owner? There are 100 Million lawful firearm owners. Take out the suicides (about half of all gun-related homicides each year) and the illegal gun owners (mostly gang bangers and drug dealers), and you’re left with… what, exactly?
I’ll tell you what you’re left with: you’re left with a society in which each year more people are murdered with hammers than are murdered with rifles, and where an order of magnitude more children die in swimming pools than are killed by accidental firearm discharge.
By the way, just curious, given your suggestion that requiring firearms insurance is not an unconstitutional infringement of the second amendment: what’s your stance on requiring a State-issued photo ID in order to vote?
Actually use of the public way in any private conveyance is a right. Government convinced us it was a privilege it granted to increase its power. Government took advantage of the new technology, people’s fear of it, and it’s initial state as a toy of the rich.
The only reason it’s a privilege is because most of the people believe the con. Perception is reality.
Yes, B, by restricting liberty of movement along PUBLIC ways is a very effective control measure of a population. If you cannot move yourself or goods or services–if you cannot communicate ideas–you are in a concentration camp, a prison, an Indian reservation.
The US Army gives transportation priority of status over marksmanship. Aviator wings trump artillery badges. Driver badges (even mechanic badges) trump machine gun marksmanship, rifles, pistols, anti-tank weapons. If not for the universal use of telephones and personal computers (begin able to read, write and speak) the Army might be giving badges for that–the Army does give badges for running (Physical Training badges).
Try walking along the Interstate and other “limited access” roadways. If you wander city streets–legally–you risk being picked up as a vagrant. Being on foot equals being poor–and being poor equals being wrong. You generally need some sort of permission to operate a vehicle along the ‘public way.’ As for use of commercial or public transportation, merely having money isn’t enough–how about that “No Fly” list! Use of telecommunications is subject to Federal Communications Commission regulations–which include censorship. The US Postal Service (now a “private corporation’) still has extensive limits on the literature you are permitted to ship. And the Internet is the target of the censorship faction in Congress–can’t let people say negative things about Global Warming, after all!
All of these restrictions are “for your own damned good” and don’t forget it!
It’s interesting all the work a rounds progressives have created to stomp on people’s rights. The slippery slope of conning people into believing that driving is a government granted privilege to mandatory auto insurance… to mandatory health insurance… and now the quest for mandatory gun insurance. Of course there’s no such thing as a slippery slope.
Then there’s the trashing of the six enumerated rights in the First Amendment…
It’s a pity that anything ressembling this milita is decidely unregulated.
Adam Gallon is running afoul of language shift. Old-style “regulation” meant trained and properly equipped–the current “regulation” means “controlled.” And quite frankly the “militia” of today is far more “controlled” than ever. Don’t believe me, look at the thousands of regulations and laws on the books today–and despair that “control” is nothing but an illusion.
Start with the system of checks and balances establishing three branches of government: executive, judicial and legislative. The organized militia is part of the executive, and the unorganized militia can be brought under executive authority by the combined actions of Congress and the President–as long as the federal court system doesn’t decide that the actions are illegal.
Yes, exactly. The old meaning of “regulate” is still used in connection with clocks and watches. A clock which has been cleaned and adjusted so that it keeps accurate time and functions correctly is referred to as being “regulated.”
Adam Gallon just fell into the Anachronistic Fallacy trap (owing to change in language over time), and Gold 1 Corsair explains why …
Federalist 28 and 29 also describe the militia as the people.
The idea “that the militia meant the military” persists because it is effective on the ignorant. And there are plenty of them around.
Even though the military is a path to citizenship in the United States, most American military personnel are citizens–and one take on “the right to bear arms” is the right to become a law enforcement officer or a soldier. This right was denied to women and to ethnic/racial “minorities” throughout most of American history. Until recently the right to serve was denied to homosexuals because homosexuality was regarded as mental illness.
And the denial of “right to serve” was extended to deny private weapons to the usual suspects: new immigrants, people who practices weird religions, anybody that the “Establishment” decreed was less than human.
Then to rub salt in the wound, these same “usual suspects” were denied the protection of law. Women were subject to corporal punishment by husbands, fathers and other male relatives until late in the 20th Century–now that’s the crime of battery. Until the 1950’s it was effectively not a crime for a white mob to lynch a black man.
So in effect the Second Amendment hasn’t been honored: citizens were denied the right to serve (“bear arms” under public officials), denied the right to own weapons, denied the protection of law.
Fun stuff!
Not sure what your point is, if you have one.
Note that citizens of the large cities Chicago, NY, and DC, are currently “denied the right to own weapons.”
The citizens of many large cities in the United States are not only denied weapon ownership, but they are denied weapon possession (bearing arms), they are not allowed to be part of the police force or local militia (the National Guard bans fat people from serving) and they do not have a right to police protection!
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0
WASHINGTON, June 27 – The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/2005/07/18/right-to-self-defense/
On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to police protection even in the presence of a restraining order.
By a vote of 7-to-2, the Supreme Court ruled that Gonzales has no right to sue her local police department for failing to protect her and her children from her estranged husband.
Sounds like “three strikes and you’re out!” Can’t own weapons in large American cities and can’t join the militias for protection–and the official police “militia” won’t protect you.
Deciding that the military equaled “militia” furthers stripping protection from American citizens. Not much of a point, is it?
You are incoherent.
How about this? If the right to “keep and bear arms” is limited to serving in the militia, then denial of that right means denial of Second Amendment rights.
Complicated ideas are hard to comprehend.
Adam Gallon says:
July 5, 2014 at 2:17 pm
It’s a pity that anything ressembling this milita is decidely unregulated.
===============================================
“U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.”
The militia from the beginning were expected to supply their own arms.
Ever read “The Prince” by Machiavelli? In that book, that Italian author slams professional armies as mercenaries–and lays out a case for a militia of citizens as the proper defense of a state. Machiavelli did remark that the state would provide arms–so the militia could be controlled by the Prince.
Traditional militias brought whatever they had that could be used for killing: sticks, stones, farm tools, carpentry tools, the family’s one kitchen knife. Militia were typically poverty-stricken. Modern armies still train in the use of “field expedient” weaponry–the North Korean military even has an elaborate set of katas for its basic infantry spade (entrenching tool).
Any wonder that small groups of professional soldiers hired out as mercenaries were able to control vast populations of unarmed and untrained victims?
The USSR left an unintended legacy with its universal military service: many of the ethnic separatists were armed with that most dangerous of weapons, knowledge.
Knowledge of weapons and how to use them. Tactics. Communications. Planning. Location of weapon stores–and how to gain access to those weapons. In many cases, knowledge of weapons fabrication.
So even when “only the government has weapons” the potential for those weapons to wind up “in the wrong hands” is there.
Another “weapons control” measure is to steal everybody’s money–if they don’t have resources, the peasants and workers are unlikely to get weapons. Keeping the peasants and workers stupid works better.
Is our Democratic Party-dominated educational system fostering “world peace” by failing to educate American children? How often have you heard how the American educational system is a failed system?
It shows in the Global Warming debate–and in this topic on trashing US History.
http://youtu.be/LYY73RO_egw
It sounds to me like au1corsair and gator69 need to get a room.
Appears you have disturbing fantasies.
The New York Times is the organ of the establishment, not of progressives, and I and most of my progressive friends believe in gun ownership.
The Relationship Between Gun Control And Genocides
http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/genocide.html
Bob, I try to be cynical about man’s ability to manipulate language to his advantage but I can’t keep up.
The Left’s misappropriations of common words, shifts of meaning and obfuscations to a point of complete incoherence would take pages to fill. It’s been one of the Left’s principal weapons since its 18th century inception.
So you are self-described “Progressives” who believe in gun ownership. The self-described “Progressives” I know do not. They believe in disarmed population and using the power of the State to achieve their goals.
WTF does the word mean then? And knowing Leftists all too well, why should I believe that you support your opponents’ right to defend themselves against your plans? It doesn’t make sense.
CW, your mistake is to assume that progressives think alike, which would be like all reactionaries thinking alike. My ‘plans’ include a $50 tonne carbon tax to subsidize energy efficiency, would cost a tenth of the bloated military budget, but would be far more productive. You might be worried about progressives, but I am worried about the ‘Christian Taliban.’
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/07/06/womans-attempt-to-troll-liberals-backfires-when-someone-notices-this-disturbing-similarity/?utm_source=crowdignite.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=crowdignite.com
You obfuscate about “Christian Taliban” but avoid any definition of the word “Progressive”. Just as predicted.
The US defense budget has been regarded as bloated since 1784–and back when Boston was a colony, the Crown’s bloated defense budget led to the tax revolt known as the Boston Tea Party. Military spending comes out of tax revenues–but anti-military protestors don’t usually scream “give the money back to the tax payer.” Usually it’s “we can spend it better.”
To protect its budget, the Department of Defense jumped on the Global Warming bandwagon in 2003 and spends considerable money on green energy.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/15/us-usa-military-biofuels-idUSBRE86E01N20120715
http://solarenergy.net/News/11130901-nevada-national-guard-to-install-solar-at-three-locations/
They could have saved money by simply doing things the old fashioned way–and turned the tax dollars back into the Treasury to refund to us taxpayers–but no, not cool! At least part of the biofuel fiasco is due to the myth that biofuel carbon doesn’t cause greenhouse effects…and if you believe that, there’s a unicorn salesperson somewhere on the Internet.
Regarding Christian Taliban–do you worry that the woman posing for photos will suicide bomb you any time soon? Is that cup loaded with diet or sugary beverage? How about the disturbing similarity to this photo:
http://flowtv.org/2008/10/a-girl-and-a-gun-photoshop-fakes-sarah-palinpatrick-kinsman-iupui/
(Hint: you’re supposed to see the Bible–and swastika armbands–even when they don’t exist–just like rising sea levels and zero snow fall due to global warming–otherwise you’ll be disowned and called “Christian Taliban” or something)
If you have keen eyes and can read, you will note that this iconic photo is faked. What’s more, the “gun” is an air rifle. Looks like a Crossman 760 to me, but I could be wrong. No matter–gun haters are not prejudiced but hate all guns and Crossman 760 or Colt AR-15 or Kalashnikov, they’re all the same.
Why don’t we just tax all petroleum exports? Since we’re now a net exporter of products…
The leftist mental disorder rears its ugly head again. Garters and Rattlers are both snakes, and look similar, but one will kill you and the other eats bugs. Only an idiot does not know the difference.
Conflating Holly Fisher with an Islamic terrorist? You must be either a complete idiot, or hopelessly depraved. I mean seriously: are progressives simply too stupid to grasp the difference between a law-abiding woman peacefully exercising her rights, and a terrorist murderer? The problem is: if I give you the benefit of the doubt of having two brain cells to rub together, I am forced to reach the conclusion that you know the difference, and yet are depraved enough to conflate the two images intentionally.
Either way, you play right into Holly Fisher’s hand, and make her point, spectacularly.
But I’ve no doubt you truly fear Holly Fisher, and everything she represents: freedom.
re: bobmaginnis July 8, 2014 at 2:46 am
“CW, your mistake is to assume that progressives think alike, which would be like all reactionaries thinking alike. My ‘plans’ include a $50 tonne carbon tax to subsidize energy efficiency”
The ABOVE is how stupid asses think; they have NO consideration for those who ultimately PAY for their utilities.
If coal is cheaper, WHY NOT USE IT? Oh NOES! The GUILT RIDDEN PROGRESSIVE SAYS THAT GAIA WILL BE OFFENDED IF WE DON”T PAY ‘PROTECTION MONEY’ TO ALGORE Jr.
To HELL with Algore and your damned guilt little “b” bob!
.
The American Indian was the first to “benefit” from Gun Control.
Let’s be precise–gun control has been nothing more and nothing less than banning “those people” from having guns. In the old days royalty would demand that peasants lay on the ground (a difficult position to fight from) and sometimes would literally walk on their backs. It worked to keep the Indians on the Reservation (except that the warrior cultures of the Native Americans included fabrication of their own weapons–just no guns and ammo) and it worked to limit the political power of the LEGAL immigrants and served to keep Jim Crow in power for a century after the Civil War.
The right to Keep and Bear Arms has been linked to having a political voice since Colonial days. No gun, no vote, no public voice!
Pay attention to the rest of the message. Once disarmed, you are going to be subjected to control. Control over your income–which president recently thundered about capping income levels? Control over your energy consumption–got to reduce carbon emissions! Control over your opinions–“Don’t argue with Science!”
I never resigned my commission and that hasn’t given me any 2nd Amendment benefits. Virginia is much more 2A friendly than DC or Maryland. I avoid DC or Maryland based on their anti-gun stance. I might have a casing or two in my vehicle which could get me in all sorts of trouble.
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/anti-gun-lunacy-in-dc-man-found-guilty-of-owning-antique-replica-bullets_032014
Already happening.
Isn’t Chicago a “Gun free zone” city? Seems to be working well …
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-shootings-july-4-weekend-20140705,0,6087828.story
Illinois recently was forced to enact a concealed carry law for private citizens–the last state in the USA to do so.
http://news.yahoo.com/veteran-concealed-carry-permit-shoots-back-chicago-gunman-031804649.html?.tsrc=samsungbm
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-07-04/news/ct-concealed-carry-rejection-20140706_1_michael-thomas-application-illinois-state-police
So officially it isn’t “gun free” any more. Perhaps the gun haters can point to the spike in criminal shootings (the news story was about illegal shooters being driven off by a legal one) and blame the large number of permit holders–because that creative math “proves” global warming.
I am sitting here trying to think of something that the federal government … no, make that any government instead … regulates which turns out for the better.
Let’s see … war on drugs, oh yeah that has turned out well, look to the consequences this has on Mexico et all down south. Now Colorado and possibly others loosening up on Mary Jane … now this ought t get interesting …
Firearm regulation in cities like Chicago, Detroit, et al. Where I live you can walk just about any street at night with the biggest worry being about the mosquitoes biting …
Regulations re Wall street … not even going there … the melt down speaks for its self.
Epa regulating everything under the sun it can get away with …
Osha regulations which takes a specific college degree to begin to understand …
The Americans with Disabilities act …
Ms Obama and her fit lunches for schools …
Labor relations board and Unions … not going to touch it …
Like I say, it is easier to point something that the government does that works rather than the other way around … the number is certainly lower…
Now Colorado and possibly others loosening up on Mary Jane …
Not this Colorado, though I’ve loosened up on Scotch at times, and, yes, it got interesting.
au1corsair says: @ July 5, 2014 at 3:48 pm
Even though the military is a path to citizenship in the United States….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it is not. I had a friend who was born in the UK and came to the USA at age two. He served in Vietnam and was “granted” citizenship as part of his being drafted. He had the papers to prove it too but when he went to get an American passport at age 50+ he was told he was NOT an American citizen and the Vietnam era documentation did not make him one!!! To say he was royally P.Oed, is putting it mildly since they were threatening to deport him as well.
So illegal immigrants that add to the welfare burden are OK, but people who came at an early age (and therefore had no control over that decision) who risked their lives for the country are not?
Have I got that right?
Military service was never an AUTOMATIC path to citizenship:
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/theorderlyroom/a/citizenship.htm
Note that citizenship is a moving target. The rules keep changing.
For example, Walt Disney’s father was a British subject born in Canada–and when Walt’s Florida-born mother married Elias Disney, she lost her US citizenship.
“Elias Disney was in his 70s when he discovered he was an illegal alien. For nearly 50 years, he had diligently voted in U.S. elections. His voting status was challenged and it was discovered that in the eyes of the law, he was still a Canadian.
“When Kepple had moved from Canada to Kansas, he had taken out naturalization papers and when he achieved citizenship, so did his minor children. Elias had come of age before the process had been completed so he remained a Canadian citizen. It also turned out that Walt’s mother, even though born in Ohio, was also considered a Canadian because of her marriage to Elias.
“Elias and Flora spent long hours studying the Constitution and American history for their citizenship examinations but when they appeared in court, the judge was so moved by their dedication at their age that he decided they didn’t need to go through the exam and they were naturalized.”
http://www.mouseplanet.com/8230/Walts_Canadian_Connection
On the other hand, when President Obama’s mother married a Kenyan, she retained HER US citizenship. Times–and the laws–change.
Both Walt Disney and Barack Obama were soil-born American citizens according to the official record–even if Walt’s daddy Elias was an illegal alien!
I don’t know the details of your friends case–and I’m not a lawyer. It could simply be that the passport official was full of hot air. Frequently the naturalized US citizen will be subject to petty and capricious rulings that are not in compliance with law–because the bureaucrats enforcing the many laws and conflicting regulations are neither lawyers themselves nor knowledgeable regarding the laws they are empowered to enforce.
Sort of like the EPA regulators! The environmental protection laws are more complicated than the immigration laws and the EPA regulations cannot be complied with–everybody is an illegal polluter. We’re all oxygen thieves.
Mr Goddard? I begin to detect a pattern in the beliefs and actions of the political left! Call me crazy, I think they may NOT have the best interests of “the people” at heart. Could that possibly b,,,,,,,,,Damn it. Almost typed it all without bustin’ out laughing.
Over complication of things easily graspedand understood has always been a favored tactic of enemies of the human race, no matter what nomenclature they adopt.