Phil Labonte

A lot of people can't wrap their heads around this, right?

His argument about this new world is the same argument every crappy leftist says with the Second Amendment and with the First Amendment.

We had no internet when the Bill of Rights was passed.

The First Amendment applies to the internet.

They didn't have AR-15s when the Second Amendment was passed.

The Second Amendment applies to... And to your point about this is going to be deleterious to America, correct.

I don't dispute that.

The mechanism for remedying this is Congress, the legislative branch.

That is what their point is.

No, no, no.

I'm not talking about the 14th Amendment.

I'm saying if there is a problem legislatively, it has to be solved.

This is not legislation.

This is the 14th Amendment that's being challenged, right?

This has been decades of law, which I don't agree with.

And it's judicial precedent, not codified law.

But there's also something called stare decisis, which is what John Roberts was voted in on, which is his point is if something has been around for a long time, it should take a lot to for the Supreme Court.

They can do all sorts of things.

Just like with the prohibition amendment.

If something is not working out, you go through the legislative process.