MAGAman
Pro-American Patriot
Well said.But the Democrats say that asking for an ID is racist.
Why are the Democrats so racist?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well said.But the Democrats say that asking for an ID is racist.
Why are the Democrats so racist?
OK. It's mentioned 5 times.
Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.
But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.
In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?
Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.
Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.
By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.
Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?
There are many differences.
First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.
The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.
I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.
Starting to see the differences now???
It's this simple...Gun laws do not work. Criminals get guns illegally.
Question #1... If a thug has murder or mayhem in their heart, will a silly gun law stop them from committing a gun crime?
Question #2...If a thug is convicted and hanged for a violent gun offense, will this stop them from committing another gun crime?
It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?
It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?
I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?
There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.
But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?
I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?
I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.
Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.
Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?
Hang leftist turds like you. Works for me .
Of course it does, but you're an ass hole who can't point out where I'm wrong.
Of course I can, it's right around Amendment 2, buttnugget.
"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."
Constitution of the United States - We the People
It's this simple...Gun laws do not work. Criminals get guns illegally.
Question #1... If a thug has murder or mayhem in their heart, will a silly gun law stop them from committing a gun crime?
Question #2...If a thug is convicted and hanged for a violent gun offense, will this stop them from committing another gun crime?
It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?
It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?
I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?
There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.
But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?
I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?
I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.
Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.
You're just getting silly now. If U-hauls were as effective at killing people as guns are, the military would have a U-Haul brigade. Try to not be so childish.
Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.
Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.
By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.
Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?
There are many differences.
First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.
The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.
I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.
Starting to see the differences now???
Background checks don't require fingerprints now. There isn't much reason they will any time soon. Permits aren't required in very many states either. Since paperwork for current background checks are destroyed by law, I don' see much chance of keeping track of a person who buys a gun anyway. You got anything else? Your complaints just don't hold up. I haven't looked at the particular bill you mention, and it might have some objectionable things in it, but universal background checks can easily be enacted without the things you just complained about.
It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?
It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?
I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?
There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.
But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?
I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?
I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.
Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.
You're just getting silly now. If U-hauls were as effective at killing people as guns are, the military would have a U-Haul brigade. Try to not be so childish.
Be so childish? You should get out of the basement once in a while.
Toronto is the most recent of many deliberate attacks involving vehicles
A Short History of Vehicles Being Used as Deadly Weapons
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.
Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?
There are many differences.
First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.
The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.
I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.
Starting to see the differences now???
Background checks don't require fingerprints now. There isn't much reason they will any time soon. Permits aren't required in very many states either. Since paperwork for current background checks are destroyed by law, I don' see much chance of keeping track of a person who buys a gun anyway. You got anything else? Your complaints just don't hold up. I haven't looked at the particular bill you mention, and it might have some objectionable things in it, but universal background checks can easily be enacted without the things you just complained about.
Great, so if we try to do that with voting, you on the left would have no problem with that?
For crying out loud, your comrades have been complaining how discriminatory it was obtaining a simple ID. Now you're going to tell me the left would have no problem with background checks and fingerprinting to vote? How many times have they taken the state to court just for ID's?????
In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost
These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost
What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?
[Q
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
These particular conditions infringe on the rights protected by the second amendment, A right cannot be licensed,In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost
What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?
[Q
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.
You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.
If you have to ask you're part of the problem.In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost
What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?
"Shall not be infringed" comes to mind.[Q
Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?
My god you Moon Bats are absolutely morons. Then you idiots wonder why we ridicule you so much.
You are just as ignorant of the Constitution as you are ignorant of History, Economics, Climate Science, Ethics and Biology.
OK, so educate me. Show me where in the constitution the right to bear arms is any more important or protected than the right to vote. One right wing idiot even said the right to vote wasn't even in there,
Different and you know it. Illegal aliens don't have the right to vote, American citizens have the right to bear arms. Stop being liberal and learn something.It negates something being a right, next!In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.
Unconstitutional.
Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost
What is unconstitutional about meeting a few conditions?
So you are against requiring ID to vote too, right?