CDZ We should charge 431.50 dollars in order to vote, people will then take it seriously...

[Montrovant]

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Recreation is one of the "traditionally lawful uses" for a firearm protected by the 2nd.
So....?

Absolutely not, and the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. It's not 1787 anymore. We don't shoot raccoons to eat.

Feel free to try to get an amendment passed then.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I know exactly why it's there. And that reason has gone the way of the musket.

Obviously untrue as your raccoon remark illustrated.

The original reason for the framers to include it was to allow militias to be armed.

This is a lie.

The only reasons left are recreation.

This is also a lie.

 

[KissMy]

No Way!!! - That would create a "Marshal Law" "Police State"

It MUST always be everyone allowed to freely vote once per election. Restricting any segment of the population will eventually enslave them.

It's Martial Law.

Disagreed. The Founders originally allowed only landed or tax-paying citizens to vote. The theory being that those voting should have a stake in the nation (i.e., skin in the game). Over the years more and more people were allowed to vote until we have an abortion of a nation. If we're going to vote whether or not we should go to war, shouldn't those who vote know what it means to send our troops into battle? The 2003 Iraq War was started by a bunch of RW chickenhawks and LW spineless cowards. Very few of them had ever served in the military.

Perhaps we should change the rule about automatically being born a full citizen and require every American 18 years old or older to pass a citizenship exam before being allowed to vote.

Winning the Vote: A History of Voting Rights | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a “stake in society.” Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes.

Everyone living here has all their skin in the game. If only us land owners could vote, we would quickly vote that no land owner pays taxes or fights wars. We would put all non-owners in slums, set high rent price controls & taxes on them. Everyone would have to serve us landlords.

We have public education system to make sure voters can make good decisions. If only people who pass complicated poll test could vote, US smart people would cut out all public education so only we could vote. We would pass laws that anyone who does not pass our test has to pay all the taxes & serve us.

If only people with no criminal record could vote, we would trump up criminal charges or arrest anyone we don't want voting.

 

[Divine Wind]

The original reason for the framers to include it was to allow militias to be armed. That reason is gone, and I figured that'd be obvious to all with working frontal lobes.

The only reasons left are recreation. Another "valid" reason is hunting, and used the raccoon remark to preemptively destroy that reasoning.

Partially correct. Is that as far as your understanding of history takes you?

 

[Divine Wind]

Everyone living here has all their skin in the game. If only us land owners could vote, we would quickly vote that no land owner pays taxes or fights wars. We would put all non-owners in slums, set high rent price controls & taxes on them. Everyone would have to serve us landlords.

We have public education system to make sure voters can make good decisions. If only people who pass complicated poll test could vote, US smart people would cut out all public education so only we could vote. We would pass laws that anyone who does not pass our test has to pay all the taxes & serve us.

If only people with no criminal record could vote, we would trump up criminal charges or arrest anyone we don't want voting.

You don't speak for all land-owners.

What "skin" does a person who pays no taxes have "in the game"?

 

[Montrovant]

Everyone living here has all their skin in the game. If only us land owners could vote, we would quickly vote that no land owner pays taxes or fights wars. We would put all non-owners in slums, set high rent price controls & taxes on them. Everyone would have to serve us landlords.

We have public education system to make sure voters can make good decisions. If only people who pass complicated poll test could vote, US smart people would cut out all public education so only we could vote. We would pass laws that anyone who does not pass our test has to pay all the taxes & serve us.

If only people with no criminal record could vote, we would trump up criminal charges or arrest anyone we don't want voting.

You don't speak for all land-owners.

What "skin" does a person who pays no taxes have "in the game"?

Just living here means you are subject to the laws and regulations of the country as well as the state and city and county you live in. That is a kind of 'skin in the game' for everyone, regardless of tax burden.

 

[Divine Wind]

Just living here means you are subject to the laws and regulations of the country as well as the state and city and county you live in. That is a kind of 'skin in the game' for everyone, regardless of tax burden.

Saying "subject to the laws" is a long ways from abiding by.

No, that's not "skin in the game". Perhaps we aren't discussing the same phrase. This is the one I'm intending:

Skin In The Game

What does 'Skin In The Game' mean
Skin in the game is a term coined by renowned investor Warren Buffett referring to a situation in which high-ranking insiders use their own money to buy stock in the company they are running.

BREAKING DOWN 'Skin In The Game'
The idea behind creating this situation is to ensure that corporations are managed by like-minded individuals who share a stake in the company. Executives can talk all they want, but the best vote of confidence is putting one's own money on the line just like outside investors!

It's colloquially extrapolated to mean everyone who is interested in a project should invest in it. In this case, the United States of America.

 

[Montrovant]

Just living here means you are subject to the laws and regulations of the country as well as the state and city and county you live in. That is a kind of 'skin in the game' for everyone, regardless of tax burden.

Saying "subject to the laws" is a long ways from abiding by.

No, that's not "skin in the game". Perhaps we aren't discussing the same phrase. This is the one I'm intending:

Skin In The Game

What does 'Skin In The Game' mean
Skin in the game is a term coined by renowned investor Warren Buffett referring to a situation in which high-ranking insiders use their own money to buy stock in the company they are running.

BREAKING DOWN 'Skin In The Game'
The idea behind creating this situation is to ensure that corporations are managed by like-minded individuals who share a stake in the company. Executives can talk all they want, but the best vote of confidence is putting one's own money on the line just like outside investors!

It's colloquially extrapolated to mean everyone who is interested in a project should invest in it. In this case, the United States of America.

True, not all will abide the laws, but everyone has an opportunity to vote for the leaders who write those laws.

If your question is really what financial stake does a person have who pays no taxes, I guess it depends on the individual situation, whether your only care about direct financial stakes, and whether you only mean paying income taxes.

Also, calling taxes an investment is a bit disingenuous, as I think investment is generally used to describe a voluntary action, whereas taxes are anything but.

 

[Divine Wind]

....If your question is really what financial stake does a person have who pays no taxes, I guess it depends on the individual situation, whether your only care about direct financial stakes, and whether you only mean paying income taxes.....

Financial stake, yes, although if you follow my posts, I'm much more military than greedy capitalist. Still, I support the idea of people who have a stake in our nation's best interests voting rather than those who just suckle its tits.

If it was up to me, no politician could vote for war unless they served in the military themselves. Do you like that idea or disagree with it. Second question, why?

 

[Montrovant]

....If your question is really what financial stake does a person have who pays no taxes, I guess it depends on the individual situation, whether your only care about direct financial stakes, and whether you only mean paying income taxes.....

Financial stake, yes, although if you follow my posts, I'm much more military than greedy capitalist. Still, I support the idea of people who have a stake in our nation's best interests voting rather than those who just suckle its tits.

If it was up to me, no politician could vote for war unless they served in the military themselves. Do you like that idea or disagree with it. Second question, why?

I disagree that money should be the deciding factor in who votes. I don't think that paying taxes makes someone have the best interests of the country in mind, nor do I think that not paying taxes makes someone have other interests than that of the country in mind. Patriotism is not dependent on finances. Intelligence is not dependent on finances. Knowledge is not dependent on finances. I understand the reasoning, but I don't accept it.

I disagree with only politicians that serve in the military can vote for war. The military should be civilian controlled. Serving in the military is not the same as making foreign affairs decisions. Again, I understand the reasoning, but it would mean either we limited Congress to ex-military or we limited each Congressperson's voting power based on military service. I don't like either of those options. People can vote for ex-military members if they want to, but preventing individual Congress members from voting because of their background sets a bad precedent and takes away the power of the people who voted them into office.

I would like to see us less involved in military conflicts, but I don't think that is the way to go about it.

 

[Divine Wind]

The more I think about it, and the more I watch Democrats push legislation limiting the rights of innocent American citizens, the more I like the idea of requiring a fee to vote. The fee would remove both those who suck off the tit of American taxpayers and also those young and inexperienced. Successful, mature and prosperous Americans can easily afford the fee. Those who are not, cannot. That is exactly the reason why we should institute such a fee. We've tried expanding rights to everyone who can push a button and lowered the voting age, and it obviously isn't working.

 

[Montrovant]

The more I think about it, and the more I watch Democrats push legislation limiting the rights of innocent American citizens, the more I like the idea of requiring a fee to vote. The fee would remove both those who suck off the tit of American taxpayers and also those young and inexperienced. Successful, mature and prosperous Americans can easily afford the fee. Those who are not, cannot. That is exactly the reason why we should institute such a fee. We've tried expanding rights to everyone who can push a button and lowered the voting age, and it obviously isn't working.

Things aren't going the way you want, so you think the answer is to take away the voice of those you disagree with.

 

[Divine Wind]

Things aren't going the way you want, so you think the answer is to take away the voice of those you disagree with.

You mean like how Hillary and other anti-gunners are dismayed by the gang-banger violence in Chicago that they want to ban and confiscate my "military-style" firearms?

Yes, I do think it's in our nation's best interests to remove from the voting rolls those who only sponge off others and don't contribute to our nation. Consider it a different means of self-defense.

 

[Montrovant]

Things aren't going the way you want, so you think the answer is to take away the voice of those you disagree with.

You mean like how Hillary and other anti-gunners are dismayed by the gang-banger violence in Chicago that they want to ban and confiscate my "military-style" firearms?

Yes, I do think it's in our nation's best interests to remove from the voting rolls those who only sponge off others and don't contribute to our nation. Consider it a different means of self-defense.

Your characterization of the young and poor as people who "only sponge off others and don't contribute to our nation" gives me an idea of your mindset. Your idea also takes voting rights away from people like stay at home parents, those living on social security income, or just those with unusual life situations. I'll use myself as an example. I am a live-in nanny, and have been for years now. I don't pay any income tax because my pay is basically my room and board. I still do have a job, plus I'm helping to raise a child. I don't get any welfare, or food stamps, I can't even get Medicaid in the state I live in. Yet, under your plan, I would be denied the right to vote. I guess I'm just a sponge with no stake in the way the country is run because I don't make enough money?

I don't care what Hillary Clinton is doing. It has nothing to do with my opposition to the idea of basing voting on income level.

 

[Toro]

I think we should charge at least $100,000 to vote.

We don't want poor people and other losers voting.

 

[Divine Wind]

....I don't care what Hillary Clinton is doing. It has nothing to do with my opposition to the idea of basing voting on income level.

Do you support additional gun control legislation? If so, you are actively seeking to infringe on the rights of every law-abiding American. Again, I see this as a legal means of self-defense against those seeking to pass "one-size-fits-all" legislation to stop gun violence in big Blue cities.

 

[Moonglow]

I think we should charge at least $100,000 to vote.

We don't want poor people and other losers voting.

That's what the Founding Fathers thought...

 

[Divine Wind]

I think we should charge at least $100,000 to vote.

We don't want poor people and other losers voting.

If it will stop the onslaught against the Constitution by the Left, I'd support it.

 

[Montrovant]

....I don't care what Hillary Clinton is doing. It has nothing to do with my opposition to the idea of basing voting on income level.

Do you support additional gun control legislation? If so, you are actively seeking to infringe on the rights of every law-abiding American. Again, I see this as a legal means of self-defense against those seeking to pass "one-size-fits-all" legislation to stop gun violence in big Blue cities.

It would depend on the specific legislation, but generally speaking, no.

Basing voting on income would require an amendment to make it legal.

 

[Toro]

I think we should charge at least $100,000 to vote.

We don't want poor people and other losers voting.

That's what the Founding Fathers thought...

I'm so American.