Quote:You don't think there is something fundamentally flawed with putting the constitution on a pedestal when guns are a "right" but voting is not?
Not at all, the right to be armed has nothing to do with directing the nation. The right to be armed is based upon the fundamental belief ALL government regardless of how well intended eventually become oppressive and ONLY an armed populace can counter them at that point.
Voting isn't about everyone having a voice, that's a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. We are governed by representation not input from everyone equally. Most American's are to busy trying to survive to worry about the basic functions of government.
That's one thing that really chaps me...the "We need to spread or form of democracy." I just immediately think that person ignorant.
Personally, I wish it would go back to the way it was. flsprtgod is right, they just keep voting for who gives them the most. That and the unfounded wars are why we have debt that can never be re-payed.
Quote:Not at all, the right to be armed has nothing to do with directing the nation. The right to be armed is based upon the fundamental belief ALL government regardless of how well intended eventually become oppressive and ONLY an armed populace can counter them at that point.
Voting isn't about everyone having a voice, that's a democracy, we are a constitutional republic. We are governed by representation not input from everyone equally. Most American's are to busy trying to survive to worry about the basic functions of government.
So, I do not own a home. I should not have a say in the direction of the country? But, actually I do because I can join the armed protest against the things I should have no say in? How does this make sense.
Quote:So, I do not own a home. I should not have a say in the direction of the country? But, actually I do because I can join the armed protest against the things I should have no say in? How does this make sense.
I'm not saying you need to own land to have a say. That was for a specific time period when they where building a nation, that time has long past.
Being armed has nothing to do with protest, it was written in specifically for the protection of the individual against oppression.
Quote:I'm not saying you need to own land to have a say. That was for a specific time period when they where building a nation, that time has long past.
Being armed has nothing to do with protest, it was written in specifically for the protection of the individual against oppression.
So what would be the cut off now to disallow people to vote?
I am just pointing out something I perceive as unbalanced. Universal ability to own a weapon you can kill anyone with but not the ability to vote for leadership of a nation you are a citizen of and directly impacted by the laws made by them.
Being armed is a protection against oppression... Note being able to vote is somehow not oppression?
Quote:So what would be the cut off now to disallow people to vote?
I am just pointing out something I perceive as unbalanced. Universal ability to own a weapon you can kill anyone with but not the ability to vote for leadership of a nation you are a citizen of and directly impacted by the laws made by them.
Being armed is a protection against oppression... Note being able to vote is somehow not oppression?
I believe constitutional anyone that is a citizen should be allowed to vote so long as they can display the ability to understand the basic functions of our constitutional republic. A Voting License I've talked about before is perfectly constitutional so long as it's not discriminatory against race, color, gender, or financial ability to pay for it.
I think if someone doesn't know the difference between the three branches of government we don't want that individual voting until they take the time to educate themselves on the system. Don't laugh you'd be surprised how many pollsters couldn't even NAME the three branches coming out of exit polls a few years back.
Quote:I believe constitutional anyone that is a citizen should be allowed to vote so long as they can display the ability to understand the basic functions of our constitutional republic. A Voting License I've talked about before is perfectly constitutional so long as it's not discriminatory against race, color, gender, or financial ability to pay for it.
I think if someone doesn't know the difference between the three branches of government we don't want that individual voting until they take the time to educate themselves on the system. Don't laugh you'd be surprised how many pollsters couldn't even NAME the three branches coming out of exit polls a few years back.
I see where you are coming and I personally have no problem with it but isnt this a national ID, something you should be against?
Quote:I see where you are coming and I personally have no problem with it but isnt this a national ID, something you should be against?
It would most likely be administered by the States for each legal resident there and not by the Federal Government.
Quote:I see where you are coming and I personally have no problem with it but isnt this a national ID, something you should be against?
Not at all it's a voluntary license required to participate in federal elections.
Make it the same as the citizenship test that would be a good start. It has to be voluntary, available to all citizens (great way for felons to earn back the voting privilege) and free of charge or it defeats the purpose.
Quote:Not at all it's a voluntary license required to participate in federal elections.
Make it the same as the citizenship test that would be a good start. It has to be voluntary, available to all citizens (great way for felons to earn back the voting privilege) and free of charge or it defeats the purpose.
I'm alright with this. I do think there needs to be ways for elderly and other cases to be able to more easily get a hold of one but other than I already have one suggestion. It should be a supplement to a DL. DL's are a ubiquitous form of ID. That should be plenty. Put the silly test on the driving test if you really must. I disagree with the rest but have no problem with requiring ID in theory.
Quote:It would most likely be administered by the States for each legal resident there and not by the Federal Government.
I was referring to his disdain for the federal government but love of state govs.... Personally, I don't have a problem with a single ID nationwide. It's silly when I go to another state people cant read mine easily because they are all so different.
Give it a few years and they won't ask for it...then there's no problem!
Quote:Not at all, the right to be armed has nothing to do with directing the nation. The right to be armed is based upon the fundamental belief ALL government regardless of how well intended eventually become oppressive and ONLY an armed populace can counter them at that point.
.
Based upon this notion, the 2nd am has lost all relevance, as citizens have no chance at all to counter the state or federal gov.
Quote:Voting is not a right no where in the constitution or any of the amendments has it ever been qualified as a right.
The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th am. pretty much spell out that it is in any practical sense. Interesting.
I'd say it's too easy to look at it that way. On the contrary, I'm against anything that stands in the way of anyone voting.
I'm surprised you think the opposite, given your feelings on governmental oppression and intrusion.
Isn't any standard or test or qualification just an opportunity to the gov to oppress an individual or specific group's vote? (And hasn't these types of things been used exactly that way in the past?)
Quote: On the contrary, I'm against anything that stands in the way of anyone voting.
Anything including not being eligible? Or just mechanisms to require responsible use of the vote like showing ID?
Quote:Based upon this notion, the 2nd am has lost all relevance, as citizens have no chance at all to counter the state or federal gov.
relevance isn't a qualifier for constitutional rights. The right to bear arms and form militias are specifically granted as inalienable rights in the constitution voting is not.
Quote:The 15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th am. pretty much spell out that it is in any practical sense. Interesting.
I'd say it's too easy to look at it that way. On the contrary, I'm against anything that stands in the way of anyone voting.
I'm surprised you think the opposite, given your feelings on governmental oppression and intrusion.
Isn't any standard or test or qualification just an opportunity to the gov to oppress an individual or specific group's vote? (And hasn't these types of things been used exactly that way in the past?)
Not a single one of those amendments creates and inalienable right to vote, it creates protections against discrimination from granting individuals access based upon various reasons and rightfully so.
If we where a democracy and I believed a democracy was the best form of government, I'd be with you 100% don't oppress the individuals ability to voice their opinion, but we're not a democracy. I think a democracy leads to an unsustainable state, where the majority can vote to take from the minority, that's dangerous for everyone, To protect a republic, representation by the most qualified to lead is essential, on that ground I don't want people that are simply ignorant to the process participating.
Every form of dictatorship or tyranny is first supported by the masses as a liberator or social reformer, it's to easy to fool the public into giving up liberty for the sake of safety and security. The goal of a democracy is for everyone to vote and have a voice, the goal of a republic is for the people to be represented by the most qualified. We want the best leaders not the popular leader, there's a big difference.
A qualifier on participating in federal elections isn't an opportunity to oppress the people, driving millions to the polls to vote "party" lines because that's what they've been told to do is the greatest tool of oppression.
In the past you had the jim crow laws that where specifically targeting minorities with that stated purpose that's VERY different from a voters license. I've said specifically you CAN NOT restrict one's ability to participate based upon ones gender, race, financial standing.
The Quality of the Vote is the goal in a Republic, the Quantity of Votes is what matters in Democracy.
Quote:relevance isn't a qualifier for constitutional rights. The right to bear arms and form militias are specifically granted as inalienable rights in the constitution voting is not.
Not a single one of those amendments creates and inalienable right to vote, it creates protections against discrimination from granting individuals access based upon various reasons and rightfully so.
If we where a democracy and I believed a democracy was the best form of government, I'd be with you 100% don't oppress the individuals ability to voice their opinion, but we're not a democracy. I think a democracy leads to an unsustainable state, where the majority can vote to take from the minority, that's dangerous for everyone, To protect a republic, representation by the most qualified to lead is essential, on that ground I don't want people that are simply ignorant to the process participating.
Every form of dictatorship or tyranny is first supported by the masses as a liberator or social reformer, it's to easy to fool the public into giving up liberty for the sake of safety and security. The goal of a democracy is for everyone to vote and have a voice, the goal of a republic is for the people to be represented by the most qualified. We want the best leaders not the popular leader, there's a big difference.
A qualifier on participating in federal elections isn't an opportunity to oppress the people, driving millions to the polls to vote "party" lines because that's what they've been told to do is the greatest tool of oppression.
In the past you had the jim crow laws that where specifically targeting minorities with that stated purpose that's VERY different from a voters license. I've said specifically you CAN NOT restrict one's ability to participate based upon ones gender, race, financial standing.
The Quality of the Vote is the goal in a Republic, the Quantity of Votes is what matters in Democracy.
I agree with this in principle but this is not how these laws are being pushed nor the politicians reasons for pushing them. This is very clearly meant to lower the voter turn out for groups that typically vote democrat. It's easy to see why people have a problem with the laws.
Quote:I agree with this in principle but this is not how these laws are being pushed nor the politicians reasons for pushing them. This is very clearly meant to lower the voter turn out for groups that typically vote democrat. It's easy to see why people have a problem with the laws.
The only law being pushed right now is an ID law which is a nice gesture but really useless in all honesty. An ID law just simply verify's the individual is legally allowed to vote, I still don't get how that is seen as a measure to suppress democrat voters.
Honest question do minorities not have ID's? I know in Florida just about EVERYONE has a driver's license but maybe in New York or big Eastern Cities with public transportation people don't have ID's? I'm trying to understand why ID is seen as a negative to democrat voters I've heard it before but don't understand why.
Quote:The only law being pushed right now is an ID law which is a nice gesture but really useless in all honesty. An ID law just simply verify's the individual is legally allowed to vote, I still don't get how that is seen as a measure to suppress democrat voters.
Honest question do minorities not have ID's? I know in Florida just about EVERYONE has a driver's license but maybe in New York or big Eastern Cities with public transportation people don't have ID's? I'm trying to understand why ID is seen as a negative to democrat voters I've heard it before but don't understand why.
In a lot of cities Latinos and other minorities are much more likely to not have ID than blacks and whites. By very large percentages actually. The issue isn't with requiring the ID, it's in making it relatively easy to obtain one.
The vast majority of DMV's do not have extended hours. So if you are a full time worker it makes it difficult to get out there and wait half a day or more to get one. Assuming you can even afford to take time off from work to do it in the first place. There is also potential costs involved in getting a DL, possibly a reason why a lot don't have one. I am sure you can see how people in this position would just not be able to do it or be frustrated enough to not do it.
As anecdotal evidence of how hard it can be to get ID, when I moved to Oregon from Florida (with a valid FL driver's license) it took me well over two months to get my ODL after passing the test here. My social security card and FL DL was not enough they wanted my birth certificate and no the one my mother could not email it to me so she mailed it to me. That was not good enough because they needed a sealed copy from the state of Florida. The whole process took an absurd amount of time. Now imagine I needed this ID in a month because laws were changing right before election time and I did not have the luxury of taking time off work like I did to make all the phone calls and the multiple trips to the DMV. Obviously this is just my personal experience.
I don't think people are really against requiring ID in general. I think most people, like I do, question the motive behind it and the timing in some cases of trying to push them through right before elections. It's not to prevent fraud (of which there has been none). I think it's very clearly meant to disenfranchise people by making it harder to cast their vote do to having to jump through hoops of government. I think ID is a reasonable requirement. If the laws are going to be pushed let's put it into action when there are not elections going on to give people plenty of time to get them if they don't have them. I think that's reasonable.
With the way you jump at a lot of conspiracy type theories I am surprised you don't at least recognize the possibility the laws are being pushed for non-altruistic purposes.
Quote:In a lot of cities Latinos and other minorities are much more likely to not have ID than blacks and whites. By very large percentages actually. The issue isn't with requiring the ID, it's in making it relatively easy to obtain one.
The vast majority of DMV's do not have extended hours. So if you are a full time worker it makes it difficult to get out there and wait half a day or more to get one. Assuming you can even afford to take time off from work to do it in the first place. There is also potential costs involved in getting a DL, possibly a reason why a lot don't have one. I am sure you can see how people in this position would just not be able to do it or be frustrated enough to not do it.
As anecdotal evidence of how hard it can be to get ID, when I moved to Oregon from Florida (with a valid FL driver's license) it took me well over two months to get my ODL after passing the test here. My social security card and FL DL was not enough they wanted my birth certificate and no the one my mother could not email it to me so she mailed it to me. That was not good enough because they needed a sealed copy from the state of Florida. The whole process took an absurd amount of time. Now imagine I needed this ID in a month because laws were changing right before election time and I did not have the luxury of taking time off work like I did to make all the phone calls and the multiple trips to the DMV. Obviously this is just my personal experience.
I don't think people are really against requiring ID in general. I think most people, like I do, question the motive behind it and the timing in some cases of trying to push them through right before elections. It's not to prevent fraud (of which there has been none). I think it's very clearly meant to disenfranchise people by making it harder to cast their vote do to having to jump through hoops of government. I think ID is a reasonable requirement. If the laws are going to be pushed let's put it into action when there are not elections going on to give people plenty of time to get them if they don't have them. I think that's reasonable.
With the way you jump at a lot of conspiracy type theories I am surprised you don't at least recognize the possibility the laws are being pushed for non-altruistic purposes.
Having an ID has just always been apart of life for me. I've never lived outside of Florida, got a license when I was 16 and any time I've had to change it, I do it online. That's why I ask what's the issue with ID. You made some valid points I hadn't heard anyone make about the issue. I can see how it could be a problem for some of the disadvantaged. I'd be fine with making it a requirement with a grace period of even a couple of years to get it done.
Honestly I'm not even crazy about an ID law, it doesn't do anything to improve the quality of our elections, for me the problem is the amount of people participating it's the amount of people that ignorantly participate.