A comparison of two Constitutional rights

[logical4u]

If the state ensures everyone that wants one has an ID, at no cost to them, then most have no problem with voter id.

But that isn't what the right wants, what they want is akin to a poll tax.

Also, if you can vote you should be able to drink. A lot of stupid laws on the books.

You fucking retard.

They want no such thing, but you knew that. You really should take care who you call a fucking retard. Its like watching a person call themselves name in the mirror.

They who, idiot boy? If you made an effort to understand the other side perhaps you wouldn't look like a freeper troll.

Poll tax is a no no.

If you want to require people to have an ID, the only way around it is to not charge them for it.

A poll tax might be a good thing:
people would be more likely to support what they really want (pay for it)
people would be more likely to hold politicians to their word
The taxes collected could be done like "United Way" where you select what they are used for
It could help the defficit
people would be more likely to eliminate wasteful programs
people would be less likely to vote more than once.....
dead people would have trouble supplying a check with their name on it....

Maybe we should have a poll tax

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

They want no such thing, but you knew that. You really should take care who you call a fucking retard. Its like watching a person call themselves name in the mirror.

They who, idiot boy? If you made an effort to understand the other side perhaps you wouldn't look like a freeper troll.

Poll tax is a no no.

If you want to require people to have an ID, the only way around it is to not charge them for it.

A poll tax might be a good thing:
people would be more likely to support what they really want (pay for it)
people would be more likely to hold politicians to their word
The taxes collected could be done like "United Way" where you select what they are used for
It could help the defficit
people would be more likely to eliminate wasteful programs
people would be less likely to vote more than once.....
dead people would have trouble supplying a check with their name on it....

Maybe we should have a poll tax

or better yet a voter IQ test which is what the Constitution and simple common sense really requires!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

we disagree with scalia for different reasons.

but heller IS the law and I always acknowledge that.

but cesspit didn't say she disagrees with scalia, did she. she just shrieked and melted down.

so in answer to your question, i'd say i can't speak for your credibility. but i know mine is intact.

Feel free to point out where I said it isn't the law. The difference Is I will never use a law I disagree with in an attempt to win an argument I cannot win with logic.

that's silly. if someone incorrectly states the law, whether i agree with the law or not, i have every right to accurately set forth the facts. it isn't logical to allow someone blowhard to spout nonsense just because i don't particularly like the case.

Except for the fact that the person you responded to did not misrepresent the law you have a pretty good point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You really are an idiot. The federal government has the authority to tell people what to do because the people delegate that authority to the federal government.

Stop talking.

The federal government has the authority to act within its enumerated powers and it never has the authority to violate our inalienable rights.

The Constitution affords Congress powers both enumerated and implied; acts of Congress are presumed to be Constitutional until a court rules otherwise.

The courts attempt to defer to Congress, and refrain from invalidating acts of Congress as such acts represent the will of the people.

The courts are ultimately responsible, however, to the rule of law, and when the people act in an un-Constitutional manner, as expressed by Congress, the courts are compelled to invalidate those measure offensive to the Constitution.

This policy is also applicable to states and other jurisdictions via incorporation doctrine.

No rights – perceived ‘inalienable’ or not – are absolute, including the rights enshrined by the Second Amendment. Government attempts to balance the interests of the state with that of the individual; laws deemed by the courts to be burdensome to the exercising of those rights are in general invalidated.

The burden of proof lies with the state to justify the limiting or preemption of a given right.

State and Federal courts have upheld as Constitutional a number of laws regulating gun ownership, including waiting periods, licensing requirements, and restrictions on those convicted of crimes:

http://smartgunlaws.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/Post-Heller-Summary-9.1.12.pdf

Consequently the government indeed has the authority to limit Second Amendment rights.

Are you arguing that, if congress decided that slavery was legal and that no court could review that decision, that it would be presumed to be constitutional because no court could rule otherwise? If you are, you are full of shit, if you aren't, you are lying. Either way, you are wrong.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A brilliant man once said that even I do not have the authority to give up my freedom.

I wish people would pay more attention to that man.

Brilliant as he was, he was actually wrong about a lot, because his premises were often unsound. Nevertheless, he was whole orders of magnitude above the dreck that constitutes political opposition these days.

Amen.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

irrelevant. You guys act as if the police are going to come in and inspect your homes every hour.
It says you must have a gun lock in washington D.c. Get the lock, put the gun beside you in bed without the lock if you need to. If someone comes to inspect( which i doubt happens.) put the lock on the gun.


YAY Logic.

The police seem to think they can come into people's house without a warrant, why should the fact that you think it is stupid for them to do it stop them?

They do?
The police have a few options.
One) Warrant
Two) Homeowner lets them in of freewill.

Beyond that they don't think what you state.

Three: We heard a toilet flush in an attempt to dispose of evidence.

Go back to playing with your dolls, you don't understand how the world works.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If people are as disturbed as Cho and Laughtner were, then no, they shouldn't be allowed to have guns, especially if they are found to be mentally deficient somehow by a certified psychologist.

Here is a fact that might get you to rethink your position, it seems that psychiatrists can only predict violence about 30% of the time. That means they get it wrong 70% of the time, which effectively means you want to bar 70% of the people who are not going to go off from owning guns, while simultaneously allowing 70% of the people who will go off to own guns. That seems pretty stupid to me, but I can actually think.

Interesting...........................you and the M14 shooter agree that even though the predictions are off, EVERYONE should be allowed to have a gun.

Maybe Karma is going to include the both of you in the 30 percent.

I hope it happens, because you don't really seem to care.

Can you provide me with a reason, other than your fear, everyone shouldn't have a gun?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They who, idiot boy? If you made an effort to understand the other side perhaps you wouldn't look like a freeper troll.

Poll tax is a no no.

If you want to require people to have an ID, the only way around it is to not charge them for it.

A poll tax might be a good thing:
people would be more likely to support what they really want (pay for it)
people would be more likely to hold politicians to their word
The taxes collected could be done like "United Way" where you select what they are used for
It could help the defficit
people would be more likely to eliminate wasteful programs
people would be less likely to vote more than once.....
dead people would have trouble supplying a check with their name on it....

Maybe we should have a poll tax

or better yet a voter IQ test which is what the Constitution and simple common sense really requires!!

It’s good to see conservatives being honest a change.

Don’t forget literacy tests while you’re at it. And only property owners should vote.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

huh? i thought i just did?
Freedom of speech is an imaginary thing you think is real. We have certain limits on freedom of speech just like we do with guns.

What limits do we have on the freedom of speech?
Why do we have those limits?
How does that reason translate to the limits on guns?

fire in a crowded room.
Threatening someone with death.
Free speech zones for the public during conventions etc.
Controlled Protest marches where you have to protest down a certain street or time.

The connection is we regulate everything, including speech, including guns.

How many times do I have to point out that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue?

You might not like it, but making threats is not illegal in and of itself. If I threatened to kill you right here and now the only way you would be able to even get the police interested is if you could prove that I know who you are and where you live. Even if you did manage to get them interested, they won't do anything unless they find some sort of actual intent to make that threat real. Even after all of that, it still isn't a free speech issue.

Free speech zones are absurd and unconstitutional, something you just admitted when you listed them as a restriction on free speech. They don't actually restrict anyone's speech though, they just make idiots feel better.

The connection is that government regulation is always evil.

 

[jillian]

Feel free to point out where I said it isn't the law. The difference Is I will never use a law I disagree with in an attempt to win an argument I cannot win with logic.

that's silly. if someone incorrectly states the law, whether i agree with the law or not, i have every right to accurately set forth the facts. it isn't logical to allow someone blowhard to spout nonsense just because i don't particularly like the case.

Except for the fact that the person you responded to did not misrepresent the law you have a pretty good point.

actually, she did. she was not correctly stating what heller held.

but thanks.

 

[jillian]

What limits do we have on the freedom of speech?
Why do we have those limits?
How does that reason translate to the limits on guns?

fire in a crowded room.
Threatening someone with death.
Free speech zones for the public during conventions etc.
Controlled Protest marches where you have to protest down a certain street or time.

The connection is we regulate everything, including speech, including guns.

How many times do I have to point out that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue?

You might not like it, but making threats is not illegal in and of itself. If I threatened to kill you right here and now the only way you would be able to even get the police interested is if you could prove that I know who you are and where you live. Even if you did manage to get them interested, they won't do anything unless they find some sort of actual intent to make that threat real. Even after all of that, it still isn't a free speech issue.

Free speech zones are absurd and unconstitutional, something you just admitted when you listed them as a restriction on free speech. They don't actually restrict anyone's speech though, they just make idiots feel better.

The connection is that government regulation is always evil.

you can point it out until the cows come home. except every case dealing with that type of issue deals with it from a freedom of speech perspective in order to ascertain what reasonable burdens can be placed on the first amendment.

are free speech zones unconstitutional? or are they reasonable time, place and manner restrictions?

what cases are you relying upon to support your assertion?

government regulation is only "evil" to childish, crybaby, pretend libertarians

 

[Dr Grump]

Here is a fact that might get you to rethink your position, it seems that psychiatrists can only predict violence about 30% of the time. That means they get it wrong 70% of the time, which effectively means you want to bar 70% of the people who are not going to go off from owning guns, while simultaneously allowing 70% of the people who will go off to own guns. That seems pretty stupid to me, but I can actually think.

Interesting...........................you and the M14 shooter agree that even though the predictions are off, EVERYONE should be allowed to have a gun.

Maybe Karma is going to include the both of you in the 30 percent.

I hope it happens, because you don't really seem to care.

Can you provide me with a reason, other than your fear, everyone shouldn't have a gun?

Because some people hear voices in their heads - and the voices don't belong to them...

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

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?

You're a lawyer and had to ask this?

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Here's is where it says restrictions are inappropriate. How ever all rights can be taken away by due process.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

that's silly. if someone incorrectly states the law, whether i agree with the law or not, i have every right to accurately set forth the facts. it isn't logical to allow someone blowhard to spout nonsense just because i don't particularly like the case.

Except for the fact that the person you responded to did not misrepresent the law you have a pretty good point.

actually, she did. she was not correctly stating what heller held.

but thanks.

You do realize that I can actually quote the post you responded to to prove I am right, don't you?

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.

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.

Nothing in there about the law or how the Supreme Court interprets the constitution at all, is there?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

fire in a crowded room.
Threatening someone with death.
Free speech zones for the public during conventions etc.
Controlled Protest marches where you have to protest down a certain street or time.

The connection is we regulate everything, including speech, including guns.

How many times do I have to point out that falsely yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a free speech issue?

You might not like it, but making threats is not illegal in and of itself. If I threatened to kill you right here and now the only way you would be able to even get the police interested is if you could prove that I know who you are and where you live. Even if you did manage to get them interested, they won't do anything unless they find some sort of actual intent to make that threat real. Even after all of that, it still isn't a free speech issue.

Free speech zones are absurd and unconstitutional, something you just admitted when you listed them as a restriction on free speech. They don't actually restrict anyone's speech though, they just make idiots feel better.

The connection is that government regulation is always evil.

you can point it out until the cows come home. except every case dealing with that type of issue deals with it from a freedom of speech perspective in order to ascertain what reasonable burdens can be placed on the first amendment.

are free speech zones unconstitutional? or are they reasonable time, place and manner restrictions?

what cases are you relying upon to support your assertion?

government regulation is only "evil" to childish, crybaby, pretend libertarians

The fact that lawyers try to argue that criminal activity is covered by free speech does not make it true, does it? If it actually worked that way, lawyers would be free to argue that murder is nothing but a way of expressing an opinion, and no one would ever go to jail for it.

Or did you think I don't understand how lawyers are trained to think?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting...........................you and the M14 shooter agree that even though the predictions are off, EVERYONE should be allowed to have a gun.

Maybe Karma is going to include the both of you in the 30 percent.

I hope it happens, because you don't really seem to care.

Can you provide me with a reason, other than your fear, everyone shouldn't have a gun?

Because some people hear voices in their heads - and the voices don't belong to them...

Joan of Arc heard voices in her head, and led France to several significant victories on the battle filed. I am sure you thought you had a point, but I can't see it.

 

[Dr Grump]

Can you provide me with a reason, other than your fear, everyone shouldn't have a gun?

Because some people hear voices in their heads - and the voices don't belong to them...

Joan of Arc heard voices in her head, and led France to several significant victories on the battle filed. I am sure you thought you had a point, but I can't see it.

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and nutjobs's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because some people hear voices in their heads - and the voices don't belong to them...

Joan of Arc heard voices in her head, and led France to several significant victories on the battle filed. I am sure you thought you had a point, but I can't see it.

Yeah, let's talk about a 15th century French saint and compare her to diagnosed psychos and szicho's and their right to have guns in the 21st century....

She is a Saint because the church believed her when she said that she was hearing the Voice of God. If she said the same thing today she would be instantly diagnosed as schizophrenic.

Once again, your point escapes me.

 

[daveman]

huh? i thought i just did?
Freedom of speech is an imaginary thing you think is real. We have certain limits on freedom of speech just like we do with guns.

Again this is a very simple concept. I understand your opinion. You are ok with background checks but don't feel gunlocks or even maybe cases are something that must be mandatory in owning a gun in your home.

Well our system is designed to allow you to get like minded people and vote for these regulations. If you can't get enough and the other side thinks its a legit thing to have. Well then you are shit out of luck. You can either comply or move to a state ( if there is one if this isnt federal ) that doesnt have these regulations.

The point is in this state with the Gunlocks, you are still getting your gun. Your right hasnt been taken away at all. You just have to own an extra piece of hardware for it. The choice is up to you.

Ridiculous argument, just like the one stating ammunition should be heavily taxed. "You can own a gun -- you just can't use it."

You are moving the goals posts dave. Try addressing what I said and not blowing it off. Im stating the reality.

I don't need to move any goalposts. It's a fact that gun locks render a weapon useless for defensive purposes.

 

[daveman]

A poll tax might be a good thing:
people would be more likely to support what they really want (pay for it)
people would be more likely to hold politicians to their word
The taxes collected could be done like "United Way" where you select what they are used for
It could help the defficit
people would be more likely to eliminate wasteful programs
people would be less likely to vote more than once.....
dead people would have trouble supplying a check with their name on it....

Maybe we should have a poll tax

or better yet a voter IQ test which is what the Constitution and simple common sense really requires!!

It’s good to see conservatives being honest a change.

Don’t forget literacy tests while you’re at it. And only property owners should vote.

Apparently, you can't see that he's mocking the anti-gun dichotomy illustrated in the OP.