A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[daveman]

The SECOND Amendment to the US Constitution is NOT a "fundamental right", but something that's not even guaranteeed in the Constitution IS?

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.

Joseph Story
Supreme Court Justice

.

She was repeating what Jones said.

 

[daveman]

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.

You fail. As usual.

 

[daveman]

Refusing to use Hitler in an argument makes you crazy.

.

Lol...you are just sad

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

George Santayana

.

With apologies to George:

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.

daveman

 

[daveman]

Lol...you are just sad

“Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”

George Santayana

.

"Contumacious is a ******* imbecile"

Dante

dD

Thanks for proving my point!

 

[daveman]

Wow you one stupid racist.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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?

The right takes the opposite stance on the two issues, correct? Can you explain that 'dichotomy'?

After you explain yours.

Since you never come through on those deals,

let me repeat the question:

The Right takes the opposite stance on the two issues, correct? Can you explain that 'dichotomy'?

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

How do you reconcile that with your desire to see voters jump through all sorts of identification hoops to vote?

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Where does it say it is appropriate?

Does the Constitution have to say that denying a gun purchase to a felon convicted of a gun crime is appropriate for it to be appropriate constitutionally?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Voting is a fundamental right, gun ownership, not.

The SECOND Amendment to the US Constitution is NOT a "fundamental right", but something that's not even guaranteeed in the Constitution IS?

**** the rest of this post, because after an intro like that, you know this cheesebrain isn't going to emanate anything worth smelling.

The right to vote is the fundamental right that has been the source of the most significant Supreme Court litigation. The Constitution addresses voting in Article II and four subsequent amendments (the 15th, forbidding discrimination in voting on the basis "of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;" the 19th, forbidding discrimination in voting based on sex; the 24th, prohibiting "any poll tax" on a person before they can vote; and the 26th, granting the right to vote to all citizens over the age of 18). The Court has chosen to also strictly scrutinize restrictions on voting other than those specifically prohibited by the Constitution because, in its words, the right to vote "is preservative of other basic civil and political rights."

Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

You might want to explore the rest of the site, it’s a reasonably good primer on fundamental Constitutional principles.

The United States Constitution - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

YOU might want to explore the rest of THIS site. It's an EXCELLENT primer on fundamental Constitutional principles . . . you know, for people who can read.

 

[daveman]

Oh no yshe is a racist, but thats on a different topic.

No, she's not, you retard.

Case history says you are wrong. Years and years of scotus opinion says you are wrong.
We has a nation have the right to regulate how you obtain said gun. We have the right to regulate you have that gun locked up.
We do not have the right to keep you outright from said gun.

You people dont seem to be able to understand the difference. You see the word infringe and think its some blanket you can hide under. Well you are wrong.

So, you're saying that the phrase "shall not be infringed" means "may be infringed".

Progressives sure are good at doublethink -- hence this thread.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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

That'd be the Second Amendment, which someone who laughably pretends to be a lawyer should know.

"Shall not be infringed"? That phrase ring a bell at all, or did they not teach Constitutional Law in Internet Faux Lawyer classes?

Perhaps you could tell me where - ANYWHERE - in the Constitution it says, "Leftist chickenshit twats get to decide the definition of 'reasonable' for everyone else".

i'd suggest you actually look at heller which specifically leaves room for such regulation.

and the comparison is a false one as there is no problem with 'voter fraud' except in the fevered imagination of the right.. not to mention that your own people made the mistake of saying they wanted it in order to sway election results.

but that's ok, right?

I'd suggest if you want to impress us with what the CONSTITUTION allows and requires, you try actually citing the Constitution for once in your pretend Internet law career. Telling us that "such-and-so court decision says so" really only translates to "OF COURSE the Constitution says nothing of the sort, and we knew we couldn't get people to agree with us, so we just wiped our asses on that thing and did what we pleased."

Are you really so obtuse that you can't figure out that disingenuous "Constitution-without-any-Constitution" arguments like yours are EXACTLY why there's an argument in the first place?

Make an argument that matters to someone other than you, or stop wasting everyone's time.

Wow you one stupid racist. You are literally trying to pass off that you k now more about the constitution than SCOTUS.

That takes big balls.

"I think 'racist' means 'someone I don't like'! What do you mean, it has a real definition?!"

I'm sorry, WHY the **** is it I'm supposed to listen to anything you say?

Don't worry, I don't blame you for going through life, thinking that only pompous elitists can possibly know anything, and that your proper place in the world is to shut up, accept what they tell you, and never, EVER try to think for yourself. God knows, I think that's YOUR proper place, too. Just try to understand that everyone isn't the dangerously vacuum-skulled fool that you are, and try not to project.

 

[daveman]

The right takes the opposite stance on the two issues, correct? Can you explain that 'dichotomy'?

After you explain yours.

Since you never come through on those deals...

All right, I'll play your stupid little game.

Then, of course, you will NOT answer my question.

...let me repeat the question:

The Right takes the opposite stance on the two issues, correct? Can you explain that 'dichotomy'?

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

Consensus? I doubt it. I support background checks.

How do you reconcile that with your desire to see voters jump through all sorts of identification hoops to vote?

"All sorts of hoops"? Where do you get this bullshit? Oh, yes -- from the prog echo chambers.

Stay away from those places. They only make you look stupid when you repeat what you've heard there.

Getting a state ID is no more burdensome than getting a driver's licence. Less, actually, since you don't have to take a driving test.

Since you have to have an ID to apply for government benefits (you know, the people the left claims would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement), you have no argument.

Now that I've answered your question -- of course, since I didn't give you the answer you insisted I give, you will claim I didn't -- you can answer the question in the OP.

Well?

 

[daveman]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

 

[NYcarbineer]

After you explain yours.

Since you never come through on those deals...

All right, I'll play your stupid little game.

Then, of course, you will NOT answer my question.

...let me repeat the question:

The Right takes the opposite stance on the two issues, correct? Can you explain that 'dichotomy'?

Let me add this: there has been an emerging consensus on the right here at USMB that even background checks for gun purchases are not acceptable.

Consensus? I doubt it. I support background checks.

How do you reconcile that with your desire to see voters jump through all sorts of identification hoops to vote?

"All sorts of hoops"? Where do you get this bullshit? Oh, yes -- from the prog echo chambers.

Stay away from those places. They only make you look stupid when you repeat what you've heard there.

Getting a state ID is no more burdensome than getting a driver's licence. Less, actually, since you don't have to take a driving test.

Since you have to have an ID to apply for government benefits (you know, the people the left claims would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement), you have no argument.

Now that I've answered your question -- of course, since I didn't give you the answer you insisted I give, you will claim I didn't -- you can answer the question in the OP.

Well?

Rephrase that in mature terms, take out the personal insults and the childish crap, and then we'll proceed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

 

[daveman]

Since you never come through on those deals...

All right, I'll play your stupid little game.

Then, of course, you will NOT answer my question.

Consensus? I doubt it. I support background checks.

How do you reconcile that with your desire to see voters jump through all sorts of identification hoops to vote?

"All sorts of hoops"? Where do you get this bullshit? Oh, yes -- from the prog echo chambers.

Stay away from those places. They only make you look stupid when you repeat what you've heard there.

Getting a state ID is no more burdensome than getting a driver's licence. Less, actually, since you don't have to take a driving test.

Since you have to have an ID to apply for government benefits (you know, the people the left claims would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement), you have no argument.

Now that I've answered your question -- of course, since I didn't give you the answer you insisted I give, you will claim I didn't -- you can answer the question in the OP.

Well?

Rephrase that in mature terms, take out the personal insults and the childish crap, and then we'll proceed.

My, what a precious tender snowflake you are.

Getting a state ID is no more burdensome than getting a driver's licence. Less, actually, since you don't have to take a driving test.

Since you have to have an ID to apply for government benefits (you know, the people the left claims would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement), you have no argument.

Now, pretty please answer my question.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All right, I'll play your stupid little game.

Then, of course, you will NOT answer my question.

Consensus? I doubt it. I support background checks.

"All sorts of hoops"? Where do you get this bullshit? Oh, yes -- from the prog echo chambers.

Stay away from those places. They only make you look stupid when you repeat what you've heard there.

Getting a state ID is no more burdensome than getting a driver's licence. Less, actually, since you don't have to take a driving test.

Since you have to have an ID to apply for government benefits (you know, the people the left claims would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement), you have no argument.

Now that I've answered your question -- of course, since I didn't give you the answer you insisted I give, you will claim I didn't -- you can answer the question in the OP.

Well?

Rephrase that in mature terms, take out the personal insults and the childish crap, and then we'll proceed.

My, what a precious tender snowflake you are.

Getting a state ID is no more burdensome than getting a driver's licence. Less, actually, since you don't have to take a driving test.

Since you have to have an ID to apply for government benefits (you know, the people the left claims would be disenfranchised by an ID requirement), you have no argument.

Now, pretty please answer my question.

See my latest posts.

 

[daveman]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

It is different. Just because something is a right doesn't mean you have identical responsibilities to fulfill to exercise that right...

...no needs a picture ID to exercise free speech or religious or privacy rights, for example.

So, you can't explain it.

 

[daveman]

Thread summary:

"That's different. Somehow. It just is!!"

Less than compelling, really.

Do you think everyone should undergo a government conducted background check each time they go to vote?

They do that when they register to vote -- proof of address, proof of citizenship.

They they should have to show ID at the poll to prove they're the person who registered under that name.

What's so awful about that?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Wow you one stupid racist.

Unless, of course, you're shouting it at someone on whom it has no effect whatsoever.