A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[Quantum Windbag]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

They also give illegal immigrants rights they do not deserve. Libtards are some sort of crazy.

Ronald Reagan and now almost the whole GOP leadership are libtards?

Finally catching on?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They who, idiot boy? If you made an effort to understand the other side perhaps you wouldn't look like a freeper troll.

Poll tax is a no no.

If you want to require people to have an ID, the only way around it is to not charge them for it.

Yet you have no problem to force people to pay to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights do you? Hypocrite much?

like forcing people to buy proper ID (by government standards) in order to exercise their most basic right...the vote?

My most basic right is breathing.

 

[bobcollum]

Dave the typical Conservative thinks liberals salivate over the thought of regulating people even further.

That's because liberals are constantly salivating over the thought of regulating people even further.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it's probably a duck.

I don't want you to be alarmed, but you're one of the typical ones I'm talking about.

Why think with your brain when you can do it with your gut?

 

[bobcollum]

Dave the typical Conservative thinks liberals salivate over the thought of regulating people even further.

Frankly I wish people were as good at being responsible as they are at talking about how responsible they are.

Frankly, I wish people would give other people a chance to be responsible before they assume they aren't.

I see irresponsibility almost constantly, from the individual citizen all the way up to our elected officials.

 

[OKTexas]

like forcing people to buy proper ID (by government standards) in order to exercise their most basic right...the vote?

The right to vote is worthless without the right to self defense. Ya can't vote if your dead.

self defense? I was unaware anyone was trying to kill Americans so they can't vote

I know dems have no problem voting beyond the grave but that's not the case for most others. This thread deals with 2 rights, the left has no problem attaching huge cost in exercising one, but shit large bricks at the hint of a minimal cost to prove you have a right to the other.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Funny thing about judges, they also think that "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" means the government can try you as often as they want, the one thing I have heard Sotomayor object to that I agree with.

not very bright are you?

your lack of an ability to understand things you comment upon leaves many people here stunned

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

Voting is a fundamental right, gun ownership, not.

Laws addressing voting rights are consequently subject to a higher level of judicial review, usually strict scrutiny; most gun regulation measures are subject to intermediate scrutiny or a rational basis test. Only on rare occasions has strict scrutiny been applied:

Most appellate and district courts that have explicitly adopted a level of scrutiny, including Third, Fourth, Tenth, and D.C. Circuit panels, have applied intermediate scrutiny to Second Amendment challenges. lvi Courts have arrived at intermediate scrutiny using differing approaches, but the clear trend suggests that laws that do not prevent a law-abiding, responsible citizen from possessing an operable handgun in the home for self-defense should face, and survive, an intermediate scrutiny review.

At the same time, a few courts have reviewed Second Amendment challenges under strict scrutiny. lvii Additionally, a Seventh Circuit decision held that the level of applicable scrutiny should be determined by “how close the law comes to the core of the Second Amendment right and the severity of the law's burden on the right.” lviii

Several courts have held that heightened scrutiny only applies where the challenged law burdens conduct protected by the Second Amendment. Most recently, a Second Circuit decision did not identify which level of scrutiny ought to apply to Second Amendment challenges, but did hold that heightened scrutiny is only warranted if the challenged law substantially burdens the Second Amendment. lix A Ninth Circuit decision also adopted a substantial burden framework for reviewing Second Amendment challenges; while that decision was subsequently vacated en banc, at least one lower court has found that it remains persuasive authority. lx Additionally, a New York district court that rejected a Second Amendment challenge to the state’s discretionary concealed carrying licensing scheme determined that the law did not burden the Second Amendment because it did not “substantially overlap with the core Second Amendment right articulated in Heller – namely the right to use arms for the purpose of self-defense in the home.” lxi

While intermediate scrutiny is most commonly used in Second Amendment cases, an Illinois appellate court recently applied rational basis review to uphold a state law prohibiting the carrying of guns in public.lxii The court reasoned that when the U.S. Supreme Court said in Heller and McDonald that rational basis review was inappropriate for Second Amendment challenges, it was referring only to challenges to the “core” Second Amendment right of a law-abiding citizen to possess a handgun in the home for self-defense. Similarly, a federal district court expressed hesitation about applying intermediate scrutiny in evaluating a Second Amendment challenge, stating that “intermediate scrutiny seems excessive.”lxiii The court explained, “To place gun rights on the same high protected level as speech rights seems an odd view of American democratic values.” Finally, a Wisconsin appellate court recently applied a reasonableness test to uphold the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s now repealed law prohibiting concealed carry.lxiv

In almost every case, however, regardless of the test or level of scrutiny that has been applied, the Second Amendment challenge has been rejected and the statute at issue has been upheld. Still, the scrutiny issue remains a central component of much ongoing Second Amendment litigation.

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Post-Heller-Summary-9.1.12.pdf

It’s idiocy, therefore, to suggest ‘liberals’ are opposed to due process with regard to gun regulation measures; indeed, ‘the left’ would welcome nothing more than a challenge to a given firearm law, where rulings provide guidance as to how successful gun control measures should be composed.

Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

There is no ‘dichotomy,’ as there is only a consistent application of due process to both voting rights and gun ownership rights, in accordance with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and the level of judicial review applied to rights considered fundamental, and rights that are not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Yet you have no problem to force people to pay to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights do you? Hypocrite much?

like forcing people to buy proper ID (by government standards) in order to exercise their most basic right...the vote?

My most basic right is breathing.

breathing is a right?


good gawd, you're on a roll today

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The right to vote is worthless without the right to self defense. Ya can't vote if your dead.

self defense? I was unaware anyone was trying to kill Americans so they can't vote

I know dems have no problem voting beyond the grave but that's not the case for most others. This thread deals with 2 rights, the left has no problem attaching huge cost in exercising one, but shit large bricks at the hint of a minimal cost to prove you have a right to the other.

huge costs to purchasing a gun?

 

[OKTexas]

like forcing people to buy proper ID (by government standards) in order to exercise their most basic right...the vote?

Dims have filed lawsuits against voter ID even when the state provides it for free.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Why? Is there illegal voting going on? Where? What proof have you?

Guess you missed the thread where the Maobama phone lady was on Alex Jones show, she admitted helping non-citizens to ger IL ID in order to vote. The really sad thing is she was so ignorant she had no idea she had done something wrong and she was being paid by Maobamas campaign. You might want to check it out, it proves there is a problem.

 

[bobcollum]

Dims have filed lawsuits against voter ID even when the state provides it for free.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Why? Is there illegal voting going on? Where? What proof have you?

Guess you missed the thread where the Maobama phone lady was on Alex Jones show, she admitted helping non-citizens to ger IL ID in order to vote. The really sad thing is she was so ignorant she had no idea she had done something wrong and she was being paid by Maobamas campaign. You might want to check it out, it proves there is a problem.

Alex Jones is highly reputable. *snort*

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If the state ensures everyone that wants one has an ID, at no cost to them, then most have no problem with voter id.

But that isn't what the right wants, what they want is akin to a poll tax.

Also, if you can vote you should be able to drink. A lot of stupid laws on the books.

You fucking retard.

No, I want voter ID requirements but ONLY if there is zero cost for a state issued ID (in lieu of a DL).

Are you also going to demand that a concealed carry license be issued at no cost, after all it concerns a Constitutional right also?

Again, you’re confusing a fundamental right (voting) with one not considered such (gun ownership).

With rational basis or intermediate review, laws requiring one to pay for a CCW permit are not subject to the same level of review as those which might restrict voting rights, where requiring a citizen to purchase a state document to vote manifest an undue burden to the exercising of that right, where requiring the same of a gun owner does not.

 

[AmyNation]

Funny TX gave people more than 2 years notice and your fine AG waited until 8 months before the elections to disallow it under the VRA, so he couldn't be effectively challenged in court before they occurred. His ruling was bullshit and will be over turned, but they got what they wanted this election.

I didn't know you weren't American.

I do not support or lay any claim to this administration in any manner. They have demenstrated no respect for our laws or Constituion which makes them unfit to serve.

Now you want to address the reaminder of the post, now that I've cleared that up for ya?

Ohhh, gotcha. Like when my daughter is acting up and I tell my husband to deal with his child.

There are many people who legitimately feel that voter ID is unnecessary and only an attempt to disinfranchise voters. Clearly that's not how you feel, however some honestly do. I don't see it as necessary, however if done correctly, I'm not vehemently opposed to it, because I recognize that some people feel it is vital.

As to the AG, I have to assume, he being the swell guy he is, did everything in his power to ensure the president got whatever he wanted when it came to changes to stage voting laws.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dims have filed lawsuits against voter ID even when the state provides it for free.

Who do you think you're fooling?

Why? Is there illegal voting going on? Where? What proof have you?

Guess you missed the thread where the Maobama phone lady was on Alex Jones show, she admitted helping non-citizens to ger IL ID in order to vote. The really sad thing is she was so ignorant she had no idea she had done something wrong and she was being paid by Maobamas campaign. You might want to check it out, it proves there is a problem.

really? how many voted? voter rolls can be checked against other data. name an election where illegal voting was a factor in the outcome? name one.

 

[OKTexas]

self defense? I was unaware anyone was trying to kill Americans so they can't vote

I know dems have no problem voting beyond the grave but that's not the case for most others. This thread deals with 2 rights, the left has no problem attaching huge cost in exercising one, but shit large bricks at the hint of a minimal cost to prove you have a right to the other.

huge costs to purchasing a gun?

There are many states you have to pay licensing fees just to own a gun, every state charges large fees to get a license to carry a gun and by the way you have to provide ID for all of them. How can you justify these charges and cry about 5-10 bucks to get an ID to vote? Both are Constitutionally protected rights.

 

[Contumacious]

The Second Amendment says Americans have the right to keep and bear arms.

But the left wants government to crawl up a gun-purchaser's rectum with a magnifying glass to vet the purchaser's suitability to own a weapon.

Several amendments to the Constitution together state that no citizen 18 or over may be denied the right to vote without due process.

The left vehemently opposes the suggestion that voters show ID to the government in order to vote.


Can someone explain this dichotomy to me?

where in the constitution does it say that reasonable regulation of guns is inappropriate.:

Ms. Jill, please provide a link to a website where Founding Father, Patrick Henry approved and defined "reasonable regulation of guns"


.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I know dems have no problem voting beyond the grave but that's not the case for most others. This thread deals with 2 rights, the left has no problem attaching huge cost in exercising one, but shit large bricks at the hint of a minimal cost to prove you have a right to the other.

huge costs to purchasing a gun?

There are many states you have to pay licensing fees just to own a gun, every state charges large fees to get a license to carry a gun and by the way you have to provide ID for all of them. How can you justify these charges and cry about 5-10 bucks to get an ID to vote? Both are Constitutionally protected rights.

who said I was against voter ID?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Dave the typical Conservative thinks liberals salivate over the thought of regulating people even further.

Frankly I wish people were as good at being responsible as they are at talking about how responsible they are.

Frankly, I wish people would give other people a chance to be responsible before they assume they aren't.

I see irresponsibility almost constantly, from the individual citizen all the way up to our elected officials.

Nice that you see it, when are you going to start expecting it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Funny thing about judges, they also think that "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb" means the government can try you as often as they want, the one thing I have heard Sotomayor object to that I agree with.

not very bright are you?

your lack of an ability to understand things you comment upon leaves many people here stunned

Agreeing with a wise Latina makes me stupid?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I know dems have no problem voting beyond the grave but that's not the case for most others. This thread deals with 2 rights, the left has no problem attaching huge cost in exercising one, but shit large bricks at the hint of a minimal cost to prove you have a right to the other.

huge costs to purchasing a gun?

There are many states you have to pay licensing fees just to own a gun, every state charges large fees to get a license to carry a gun and by the way you have to provide ID for all of them. How can you justify these charges and cry about 5-10 bucks to get an ID to vote? Both are Constitutionally protected rights.

But both are not fundamental rights.