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

[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...

I'm so American.

Canada should have not resisted the Founders attempts to conquer upper or lower Canada..

 

[Silent Warrior]

No fee. Just restrict voting to veterans and active duty military.

 

[Divine Wind]

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

My proposal is for State and local elections, not Federal ones. Otherwise you'd be correct.

 

[Divine Wind]

Canada should have not resisted the Founders attempts to conquer upper or lower Canada..

Britain shouldn't have constantly attacked us precipitating the War of 1812.

 

[Divine Wind]

No fee. Just restrict voting to veterans and active duty military.

Works for me. Furthermore, I'd make being a vet a requirement to hold national office.

 

[Montrovant]

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

My proposal is for State and local elections, not Federal ones. Otherwise you'd be correct.

I believe the USSC has ruled that state poll taxes and income requirements are also unconstitutional. See Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.

 

[Divine Wind]

I believe the USSC has ruled that state poll taxes and income requirements are also unconstitutional. See Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.

Good point. If the anti-gun Left can find ways around the Second Amendment, I'm sure we can find a way around the 14th and 24th.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Some still say only landowners should be allowed to vote.
Seriously, US elections are rather a fair where people can sit on a track.

I farmed 480 acres was paying about 5 bucks an acre PT. The city folk knew they were in for a tough fight so they went out of their way to register 18 year olds.
And then forced the taxes on the property owners and my taxes doubled.
Renters need to pay more.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

No... just the right judges.

 

[Montrovant]

I believe the USSC has ruled that state poll taxes and income requirements are also unconstitutional. See Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections.

Good point. If the anti-gun Left can find ways around the Second Amendment, I'm sure we can find a way around the 14th and 24th.

If you can get the USSC to agree with you, more power to you.

 

[Bleipriester]

Some still say only landowners should be allowed to vote.
Seriously, US elections are rather a fair where people can sit on a track.

I farmed 480 acres was paying about 5 bucks an acre PT. The city folk knew they were in for a tough fight so they went out of their way to register 18 year olds.
And then forced the taxes on the property owners and my taxes doubled.
Renters need to pay more.

Favoring and wronging a certain group is not the task of the government. It violates the preset democratic basis and limits the whole democracy to a handful of landowners and dates back to the slavery.
The government has been outsourced to even the ordinary citizen, even before it showed up itself. Rivaling groups dominated the goings-on in the towns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
I believe the USSC has ruled that state poll taxes and income requirements are also unconstitutional.

Poll taxes are only unconstitutional if the deny or abrtidge the right to vote, says the constitution.
If a $450 tax does not infringe upon the right to arms, then a $450 tax does not abridge the right to vote.

 

[Montrovant]

[
I believe the USSC has ruled that state poll taxes and income requirements are also unconstitutional.

Poll taxes are only unconstitutional if the deny or abrtidge the right to vote, says the constitution.
If a $450 tax does not infringe upon the right to arms, then a $450 tax does not abridge the right to vote.

As I said to Divine Wind, if you can get the USSC to agree with you on that, more power to you.

 

[Divine Wind]

As I said to Divine Wind, if you can get the USSC to agree with you on that, more power to you.

Again, if the anti-gun Left can find ways around the Second Amendment, I'm sure a Republican Congress can do the same around the 14th and 24th Amendments.

In all seriousness, this is why I don't like partisan asshats chipping away at our Constitution; all it does is lead to further chipping away of our rights. If the Left would stop doing it, I'd advocate the Right cease doing the same. As stated above, if the Left keeps chipping away at my right of self-defense, then I advocate actions to undercut their efforts.

 

[KissMy]

No fee. Just restrict voting to veterans and active duty military.

Absolutely NOT!!! They all follow orders & don't think for themselves.

 

[GaryDog]

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.

You're right, they also wanted to preserve arms for white men to keep slaves in line.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

 

[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.

You're right, they also wanted to preserve arms for white men to keep slaves in line.

This is also a lie.

 

[2aguy]

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.

You're right, they also wanted to preserve arms for white men to keep slaves in line.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

Sorry.....that isn't true either....that is what the one day democrats may have wanted it for....but the future Republicans wanted it to fend off tyrannical government....

Had those slaves had their own guns...they wouldn't have been slaves...since it was the future democrats in the southern governments who wanted slavery in the first place....and their first acts were to prohibit guns to blacks and indians...the very first democrat gun control measures on this continent....

 

[2aguy]

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.

You're right, they also wanted to preserve arms for white men to keep slaves in line.

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

and that lie holds up exactly till the point where you actually read what the founders said........

 

[Divine Wind]

Absolutely NOT!!! They all follow orders & don't think for themselves.

Thanks for, once again, reaffirming that the LW is anti-military and looks down on anyone who serves their nation. Makes it easier for you guys to send them to their deaths, doesn't it? After all, they volunteered so they deserve it, amirite?