A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[OKTexas]

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.

Bull shit. You have to have that state ID to buy a gun, would that not constitute the same undue burden?

 

[bobcollum]

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?

Huh?

I already do.

 

[Pheonixops]

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?

I think that the people who have those beliefs, definitely have a conflict with integrity in my opinion. I think that all you have to do is prove that you are you (DL photo ID) and are over the age of 18 in order to do both of the above.

 

[Plasmaball]

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 sonmeone explain this dichotomy to me?

Sure dipshit. SCOTUS has said basically government can not infringe on your right to own a firearm, but they can put in roadblocks (background searches).in order to weed out the crazies.

Its rather simple actually. Its amazing you morons have to have this explqined to you repeatly.
Well no its not amazing, just sad..

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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

Right, the libturd does not consider gun ownership a fundamental right.......perhaps because our Republican founders gave us that right precisely to protect ourselves from the big liberal government that liberals would inevitably impose upon us!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Excuse me? If voting is such a fundamental right why did it take 2 different amendments to give people the right to vote, while it only took one to give them the right to keep and bear arms. On top of that, I know plenty of people under 18 who own guns, I don't know any that vote.

 

[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

Agreeing with a wise Latina makes me stupid?

'judges' do not believe what you say they do. as far as what Sotomayor has said...you are an idiot

 

[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 sonmeone explain this dichotomy to me?

Sure dipshit. SCOTUS has said basically government can not infringe on your right to own a firearm, but they can put in roadblocks (background searches).in order to weed out the crazies.

.

1- define crazy
2- can the "crazies" buy firearms in the blackmarket
3- why do you trust the government to weed out the crazies
4- Was it proper for a duly elected government official - Adolf Hitler - to weed out the crazies , ie, the Jews

.

 

[OKTexas]

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*

Did you notice I relayed what one of your dear leaders former employees said the forum she used to say it is irrelevant. We all know you would prefer to deflect rather than address the issue. Just more proof of your lack of integrity.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

Huh?

I already do.

You said people are not responsible, how is that expecting it?

 

[Pheonixops]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Plasmaball]

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 sonmeone explain this dichotomy to me?

Sure dipshit. SCOTUS has said basically government can not infringe on your right to own a firearm, but they can put in roadblocks (background searches).in order to weed out the crazies.

.

1- define crazy
2- can the "crazies" buy firearms in the blackmarket
3- why do you trust the government to weed out the crazies
4- Was it proper for a duly elected government official - Adolf Hitler - to weed out the crazies , ie, the Jews

.

Using Hitler for an argument makes you crazy.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

'judges' do not believe what you say they do. as far as what Sotomayor has said...you are an idiot

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan, dissented. "[N]othing indicates that the jury's announced decisions were tentative, compromises, or mere steps en route to a final verdict, and the Double Jeopardy Clause demands that ambiguity be resolved in favor of the defendant," Sotomayor wrote.
Pointing to decisions from courts in six states with criminal conviction procedures similar to those in Arkansas, Sotomayor further argued that "the Double Jeopardy Clause requires a trial judge, in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, to honor a defendant's request for a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial on the ground of jury deadlock."
Then she hearkened back to the Founders, who included the double jeopardy clause in response to prosecutorial abuses by the English crown. Sotomayor concluded, "This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom from reprosecutions that favor States and unfairly rescue them from weak cases has not waned with time. Only this Court's vigilance has."

Supreme Court Allows Arkansas Second Shot At Murder Trial In Double Jeopardy Dispute

Somebody is an idiot, but it isn't the guy that thinks that judges think the government should get multiple chances to convict someone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion."
"The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule."
"Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state."

 

[bobcollum]

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

Huh?

I already do.

You said people are not responsible, how is that expecting it?

Oh, you mean expect them to be responsible, I guessed wrong.

I'd like all people to be responsible, but I have to be realistic.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion."
"The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule."
"Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state."

dear, using today's definitions liberals are for big government welfare programs while conservatives are for freedom from liberal government welfare programs and schemes. Using todays definition our Founders were conservatives for freedom from big government.

That makes Hitler Stalin Mao FDR Obama George 3 liberals, using today's definition. Since we live today we know todays definition and must not require people to know 18th Cnetury definitions to carry on a conversation.

 

[jillian]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

"Liberalism (from the Latin liberalis)[1] is the belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.[2] Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally liberals support ideas such as constitutionalism, liberal democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, capitalism, and freedom of religion."
"The revolutionaries in the American Revolution and the French Revolution used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of tyrannical rule."
"Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state."

dear, using today's definitions liberals are for big government welfare programs while conservatives are for freedom from liberal government welfare programs and schemes. Using todays definition our Founders were conservatives for freedom from big government.

"today's definitions""

in other words, whatever you make up.

 

[bobcollum]

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*

Did you notice I relayed what one of your dear leaders former employees said the forum she used to say it is irrelevant. We all know you would prefer to deflect rather than address the issue. Just more proof of your lack of integrity.

You're one of the biggest hacks on the board.

The irresponsible dim-wit from middle America who's on welfare is another reputable source. *snort*

You should do investigative reporting for a leading publication.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Bull shit. You have to have that state ID to buy a gun, would that not constitute the same undue burden?

No, licensing and fee requirements do not constitute an undue burden:

Generally, Second Amendment challenges by civil plaintiffs have been unsuccessful. In the wake of the Heller decision, for example, the District of Columbia adopted comprehensive firearms laws. In September 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed in part and remanded in part the federal district court’s decision rejecting a Second Amendment challenge to many of those laws, including D.C.’s firearms registration system, ban on assault weapons and large capacity ammunition magazines, one-handgun-a-month law, and law requiring the reporting of lost or stolen firearms.viii

Federal and state courts have also upheld laws requiring the registration of all firearms,ix requiring an applicant for a license to carry a concealed weapon to show “good cause,” “proper cause,” or “need,” or qualify as a “suitable person,” x requiring an applicant for a handgun possession license to be a state residentxi or pay an administrative fee,xii requiring an applicant for a concealed carry license to be at least twenty-one-years-old,xiii prohibiting the sale of firearms and ammunition to individuals younger than twenty-one-years-old,xiv prohibiting domestic violence misdemeanants from possessing firearms,xv and prohibiting the possession of firearms in places of worship, xvi in common areas of public housing units,xvii and within college campus facilities and at campus events, xviii and regulating gun shows held on public property.xix A Pennsylvania court also recently upheld a state Department of Labor and Industry regulation prohibiting firearms on property owned or leased by the Department, including in vehicles parked on Department property.xx

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

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Huh?

I already do.

You said people are not responsible, how is that expecting it?

Oh, you mean expect them to be responsible, I guessed wrong.

I'd like all people to be responsible, but I have to be realistic.

IS it reasonable to expect people to be unreasonable and irresponsible, or is it paranoid?