Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nor did the majority of felons abuse their second amendment rights, in the commission of the crime that got them convicted of a felony. If you have a succinct point; I suggest you make it. I quickly bore of partisan hackery, and quickly lose interest in those who engage in such...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?It’s about logic and it is not logical for a rapist or an armed robber to have the same voting rights as a tax paying citizen. Take your holier than though attitude and shove it.
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
Finally something we agree on. That is... Until you ammend this statement to clarify that you still want the previously convicted stripped of their 2A rights. Ah... Such a fleeting moment...Bernie believes all citizens should have a right and be encouraged to vote
He says society should not be selecting who are good voters and bad voters
I don’t think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once they are released they should have their rights returned
Same goes for minors and mentally handicapped
I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.
Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.
Why not?
Why, in your opinion, should an inmate not have a vote?
Bernie believes all citizens should have a right and be encouraged to vote
He says society should not be selecting who are good voters and bad voters
I don’t think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once they are released they should have their rights returned
Same goes for minors and mentally handicapped
Finally something we agree on. That is... Until you ammend this statement to clarify that you still want the previously convicted stripped of their 2A rights. Ah... Such a fleeting moment...Bernie believes all citizens should have a right and be encouraged to vote
He says society should not be selecting who are good voters and bad voters
I don’t think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once they are released they should have their rights returned
Same goes for minors and mentally handicapped
It a simple question...Finally something we agree on. That is... Until you ammend this statement to clarify that you still want the previously convicted stripped of their 2A rights. Ah... Such a fleeting moment...Bernie believes all citizens should have a right and be encouraged to vote
He says society should not be selecting who are good voters and bad voters
I don’t think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once they are released they should have their rights returned
Same goes for minors and mentally handicapped
Your posts are tough to follow. What exactly is your position on this?
Technically correct. Except that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And have from the founding of this nation. Voting for all is a post founding addition, and privilege. So you’re right; but not in the way you thought. Such are the perils of “a la carte” loyalty to the constitution. It shows that your motives, and positions are unprincipled. Unprincipled people are seldom effectual...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
Oh yeah “Dope!” Did that sound as cool as when you typed it? Lol!
Like I said, unprincipled...Technically correct. Except that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And have from the founding of this nation. Voting for all is a post founding addition, and privilege. So you’re right; but not in the way you thought. Such are the perils of “a la carte” loyalty to the constitution. It shows that your motives, and positions are unprincipled. Unprincipled people are seldom effectual...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
Oh yeah “Dope!” Did that sound as cool as when you typed it? Lol!
A distinction without a difference.
Comparing the right of a felon to vote and the right to a gun when that person was in prison explicitly for using a gun in the commission of crime is just dumb, dope
If a felon who has proven their disregard for the safety of society by committing crimes with a firearm cannot be excluded from possesing a firearm, then who can be?
Nor did the majority of felons abuse their second amendment rights, in the commission of the crime that got them convicted of a felony. If you have a succinct point; I suggest you make it. I quickly bore of partisan hackery, and quickly lose interest in those who engage in such...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.why was it ok during the first 100 years of our Nation's existence?
Why was it okay during the founding father's time period?
Were our founders illogical or holier than thou?
Why were felons allowed to vote until after the Civil War and Black men were given the right to vote?
Me thinks it is YOU who is trying to play, holier than thou.
Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
Like I said, unprincipled...Technically correct. Except that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And have from the founding of this nation. Voting for all is a post founding addition, and privilege. So you’re right; but not in the way you thought. Such are the perils of “a la carte” loyalty to the constitution. It shows that your motives, and positions are unprincipled. Unprincipled people are seldom effectual...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
Oh yeah “Dope!” Did that sound as cool as when you typed it? Lol!
A distinction without a difference.
Comparing the right of a felon to vote and the right to a gun when that person was in prison explicitly for using a gun in the commission of crime is just dumb, dope
If a felon who has proven their disregard for the safety of society by committing crimes with a firearm cannot be excluded from possesing a firearm, then who can be?
I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.
Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.
Why not?
Why, in your opinion, should an inmate not have a vote?
Because they gave up that right when they committed their crime. Should we also retain their rights to bear arms? You’re just trolling.
See all the twisting, and turning; the yeah-but’s, and exceptions and excuses having unprincipled positions require? Therin ends the lesson...Nor did the majority of felons abuse their second amendment rights, in the commission of the crime that got them convicted of a felony. If you have a succinct point; I suggest you make it. I quickly bore of partisan hackery, and quickly lose interest in those who engage in such...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.It wasn't changed when women got the right to vote which was decades later, it was changed when the Black man, newly freed slaves, got a right to vote, and it was for an evil purpose, not a position that evolved because it was for the betterment of mankind or for all of our citizens.Because we evolved and ended slavery and allowed women to vote. That is why. Your idiocy is amusing. Must be all the cold weather in ME.
I can see how to you, it just seems normal to do this, since your whole life it has been this way....
But, I don't think it is crazy, for a State to reconsider their position on this, since we now know, the purpose of doing it, was not to punish people that have done wrong.... it is not like it is part of their sentencing for their crime committed.... it's purpose back then was to disenfranchise citizens of their vote... the black man of their newly gained vote, and now it is used to disenfranchise primarily thought to be Democratic leaning citizens, of their vote.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
I never said every felon should be barred from firearms, dope.
I said your comparison was dumb.
Because he completed his sentence. That was easy... Any other questions?Like I said, unprincipled...Technically correct. Except that Americans have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. And have from the founding of this nation. Voting for all is a post founding addition, and privilege. So you’re right; but not in the way you thought. Such are the perils of “a la carte” loyalty to the constitution. It shows that your motives, and positions are unprincipled. Unprincipled people are seldom effectual...The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons” stunt they pulled to trample a persons second amendment rights. For life. Both are bad law, and unconstitutional. And neither would have been met with approval by the founders. That’s why no such laws existed at the time of the founding.The exact same thing can be said for the “prohibited persons”
Not really " the exact same thing".
No one abused their right to vote while commiting a crime, dope.
Oh yeah “Dope!” Did that sound as cool as when you typed it? Lol!
A distinction without a difference.
Comparing the right of a felon to vote and the right to a gun when that person was in prison explicitly for using a gun in the commission of crime is just dumb, dope
If a felon who has proven their disregard for the safety of society by committing crimes with a firearm cannot be excluded from possesing a firearm, then who can be?
Sure, dope.
Tell us why an MS13 member should get his gun rights restored after completion of his murder sentence .
There's nothing wrong, in my book, with letting the Son of Sam vote. He's still behind bars where we're safe from him. When people like andaronjim vote, that's just as "dangerous," in my book.dunno. those are better questions for him and maybe he has more ideas around it. but i would ask him those questions and concerns before i said "bernie wants to let son of sam vote!" because that is taking what *is* said and putting "max drama" to it and i think that horse is long since dead and i'm tired of people flogging it and making every statement *extreme* in nature.Why does Bernie want the son of Sam, Charles Manson and Boston Bomber voting?he said prisoners should vote - people who want to mock him are pulling up extreme names to use as an example. this "proxy quoting" sure can confuse things and lead to "fake news".He said he believes it is a slippery slope, once you normalize taking away a citizen's vote, then the next category of citizens you don't like or can demonize can be subject to losing their vote, as well....well what, only 50-60% on average vote anyway?i didn't see the part about not caring and that's fine - appreciate the highlight of that. my question then is, if a majority of them don't care, why is bernie making it an issue to give them something they don't care about?
seems bernie could pick better talking points for his platform.
He believes the Son of Sam should vote. Crazy Bernie is living up to his moniker.
somewhere along the way we normalized the extreme. time to put things back where they belong and stop doing that.
bernie wants inmates to vote. can we clarify his position and ask for more details on that before we nail him for the statement?
that said - saying we need to rebuild america from the ground up in 10 years - ok - that's stupid from the word go.
It a simple question...Finally something we agree on. That is... Until you ammend this statement to clarify that you still want the previously convicted stripped of their 2A rights. Ah... Such a fleeting moment...Bernie believes all citizens should have a right and be encouraged to vote
He says society should not be selecting who are good voters and bad voters
I don’t think prisoners should be allowed to vote. Once they are released they should have their rights returned
Same goes for minors and mentally handicapped
Your posts are tough to follow. What exactly is your position on this?
i view it as you lose rights when you go to prison. in the end if as you say they really don't care, i go back to ask again, who is bernie doing this for? the inmate who don't care or ths WOKE crowd who feels this is pushing base human rights and that is his core agenda?There's nothing wrong, in my book, with letting the Son of Sam vote. He's still behind bars where we're safe from him. When people like andaronjim vote, that's just as "dangerous," in my book.dunno. those are better questions for him and maybe he has more ideas around it. but i would ask him those questions and concerns before i said "bernie wants to let son of sam vote!" because that is taking what *is* said and putting "max drama" to it and i think that horse is long since dead and i'm tired of people flogging it and making every statement *extreme* in nature.Why does Bernie want the son of Sam, Charles Manson and Boston Bomber voting?he said prisoners should vote - people who want to mock him are pulling up extreme names to use as an example. this "proxy quoting" sure can confuse things and lead to "fake news".He said he believes it is a slippery slope, once you normalize taking away a citizen's vote, then the next category of citizens you don't like or can demonize can be subject to losing their vote, as well....
He believes the Son of Sam should vote. Crazy Bernie is living up to his moniker.
somewhere along the way we normalized the extreme. time to put things back where they belong and stop doing that.
bernie wants inmates to vote. can we clarify his position and ask for more details on that before we nail him for the statement?
that said - saying we need to rebuild america from the ground up in 10 years - ok - that's stupid from the word go.
I expected some wrangling around what Bernie actually stated such as fighting for felons to have the right to vote after the sentence has been completed but this is just jumping straight to crazy. They should vote for the warden too I guess. They have a pretty clear interest in the warden and weather or not they believe in locking the front door.
Prisoners have a stake in who is running the prisons. The idea that they shouldn't vote was dumb to begin with.
Why not?
Why, in your opinion, should an inmate not have a vote?
Because they gave up that right when they committed their crime. Should we also retain their rights to bear arms? You’re just trolling.
Who says? Who says they should lose the right to vote?
There's nothing wrong, in my book, with letting the Son of Sam vote. He's still behind bars where we're safe from him. When people like andaronjim vote, that's just as "dangerous," in my book.dunno. those are better questions for him and maybe he has more ideas around it. but i would ask him those questions and concerns before i said "bernie wants to let son of sam vote!" because that is taking what *is* said and putting "max drama" to it and i think that horse is long since dead and i'm tired of people flogging it and making every statement *extreme* in nature.Why does Bernie want the son of Sam, Charles Manson and Boston Bomber voting?he said prisoners should vote - people who want to mock him are pulling up extreme names to use as an example. this "proxy quoting" sure can confuse things and lead to "fake news".He said he believes it is a slippery slope, once you normalize taking away a citizen's vote, then the next category of citizens you don't like or can demonize can be subject to losing their vote, as well....
He believes the Son of Sam should vote. Crazy Bernie is living up to his moniker.
somewhere along the way we normalized the extreme. time to put things back where they belong and stop doing that.
bernie wants inmates to vote. can we clarify his position and ask for more details on that before we nail him for the statement?
that said - saying we need to rebuild america from the ground up in 10 years - ok - that's stupid from the word go.
This is something that should probably be left up to the states anyway.
