Big Gun Reform Idea From 2020 Democrats

[Billy_Kinetta]

It negates something being a right, next!

So you are against requiring ID to vote too, right?

Voting is not a right.

OK......That was stupid.

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

 

[captkaos]

So a national gun registry of sorts? That'll make it easier to confiscate the guns when they finally have the power required to complete their endgame by repealing the 2nd...

Better buy them now...

Gun sales spike 400% Monday.

I thought about getting a couple ARs because they're cheap right now and there may be "Assault weapons ban" 2.0, but I just don't like them. Little bitty loud bullets. If it's that loud, I want something with some ass behind it.

SKS is at least wood, but there's no way to decently mount an optic on them.

M14s are at least $1400 minimum. I like M14s, but so expensive!

And I don't need another gun.

Marlin model 1895 in 45-70cal. lever action Plenty of punch and good accuracy. Fine all purpose firearm.

 

[Marion Morrison]

So a national gun registry of sorts? That'll make it easier to confiscate the guns when they finally have the power required to complete their endgame by repealing the 2nd...

Better buy them now...

Gun sales spike 400% Monday.

I thought about getting a couple ARs because they're cheap right now and there may be "Assault weapons ban" 2.0, but I just don't like them. Little bitty loud bullets. If it's that loud, I want something with some ass behind it.

SKS is at least wood, but there's no way to decently mount an optic on them.

M14s are at least $1400 minimum. I like M14s, but so expensive!

And I don't need another gun.

Marlin model 1895 in 45-70cal. lever action Plenty of punch and good accuracy. Fine all purpose firearm.

Yeah, my cousin had one of those. The "Quigley Down Under" model.

He had the "Rifleman" model, too.

I'm good on guns.

There's really nothing I need. Last week, instead of worrying about ARs n stuff, I got what I wanted, so teh toy budget is spent.

I could get a couple ARs if I wanted to. I never have wanted to, though.

 

[captkaos]

So a national gun registry of sorts? That'll make it easier to confiscate the guns when they finally have the power required to complete their endgame by repealing the 2nd...

Better buy them now...

I do agree the Govt doesn't need to know where they are(The guns). The knowledge that they are in the hands of people who will not give up their freedom is all they need to know.

 

[BULLDOG]

So you are against requiring ID to vote too, right?

Voting is not a right.

OK......That was stupid.

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Voting is not a right.

OK......That was stupid.

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK......That was stupid.

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

I think you and yours are the difference. Your level of illiteracy is astounding.

Now run along.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

Hang leftist turds like you. Works for me .

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

Hang leftist turds like you. Works for me .

Most of them aren't worth the rope.

 

[captkaos]

Voting is not a right.

OK......That was stupid.

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

"The Right of the People to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed" is pretty friggin' clear language even for the 18th Century. They knew an over zealous over restrictive govt could infringe on the People freedom with force if the Populace was not permitted to remain armed against it. It doesn't say or give any instruction as to where they may be Kept or for what purpose, because it's none of the govts business.

 

[captkaos]

So a national gun registry of sorts? That'll make it easier to confiscate the guns when they finally have the power required to complete their endgame by repealing the 2nd...

Better buy them now...

Gun sales spike 400% Monday.

I thought about getting a couple ARs because they're cheap right now and there may be "Assault weapons ban" 2.0, but I just don't like them. Little bitty loud bullets. If it's that loud, I want something with some ass behind it.

SKS is at least wood, but there's no way to decently mount an optic on them.

M14s are at least $1400 minimum. I like M14s, but so expensive!

And I don't need another gun.

Marlin model 1895 in 45-70cal. lever action Plenty of punch and good accuracy. Fine all purpose firearm.

Yeah, my cousin had one of those. The "Quigley Down Under" model.

He had the "Rifleman" model, too.

I'm good on guns.

There's really nothing I need. Last week, instead of worrying about ARs n stuff, I got what I wanted, so teh toy budget is spent.

I could get a couple ARs if I wanted to. I never have wanted to, though.

Yeah I grew up around guns! And you know something? Not even one of them ever fired itself or shot at anybody.EVER

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

There are many differences.

First of all, this bill would require people to be fingerprinted to purchase a firearm. That's not required with voter-id. Then it says you must take lessons to get this permit of theirs. We don't have classes to vote with voter-id. You simply bring reliable proof of who you are and get one.

The biggest difference however is that Voter-Id only provides proof of who you are when you do vote, not to keep track of you and what you own.

I would just love to see the reaction by the Democrats if we on the right said we're creating a law that makes you get a criminal background check before being allowed to vote.

Starting to see the differences now???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It's this simple...Gun laws do not work. Criminals get guns illegally.
Question #1... If a thug has murder or mayhem in their heart, will a silly gun law stop them from committing a gun crime?
Question #2...If a thug is convicted and hanged for a violent gun offense, will this stop them from committing another gun crime?

It's this simple...Rape laws do not work. Criminals will rape illegally.
Question #1... If a rapist has rape in their heart, will a silly rape law stop them from committing a rape crime?
Question #2...If a rapist is convicted and hanged for a violent rape offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another rape crime?

It's this simple...Murder laws do not work. Criminals will murder illegally.
Question #1... If a murderer has murder in their heart, will a silly murder law stop them from committing a murder crime?
Question #2...If a murderer is convicted and hanged for a violent murder offense, will this stop anyone else from committing another murder crime?

I could go through all the other laws that aren't 100% effective, but I think you get the point. Are all those other laws useless too?​

There are no laws that can stop people from doing anything, including mass murders. Take away guns, U-Hauls would be the new weapon of mass destruction.

But laws and penalties can stop some people from doing crimes. For instance, let's say they made rape legal. Do you suppose there would be more rapes, less rapes, or about the same?

I'm not sure how many people could be murdered with a U-Haul in a school in just a few minutes. Has that ever happened before?

I didn't know we were talking just about schools. I thought we were talking about mass murders period.

Now if a killer has children in mind, a truck can mow down dozens of kids that are walking home on the sidewalk in groups after school. The Dayton shooting in my state was done outside. The killer waited for all the bars to close where he knew groups of people would be walking and likely not armed since it's against the law to consume alcohol and carry a weapon in this state. He could have done more harm with a truck than a gun. I would assume the reason he didn't is because he didn't expect such a quick response by our wonderful police.

 

[Justin Richardson]

 

[Norman]

In a licensing — or “permit to purchase” — system, nobody could buy a gun without first getting some kind of card or certificate (in other words, a license) from local or state authorities. And to get that license, a potential buyer would have to satisfy a few conditions, like completing a firearms safety course and submitting fingerprints.

Unconstitutional.

Here's The Big Gun Reform Idea Getting Attention From 2020 Democrats | HuffPost

It would not accomplish anything other than getting in the way of decent good Americans acquiring guns.

Which is what they want.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

I think you and yours are the difference. Your level of illiteracy is astounding.

Now run along.

That is not really an answer, now, is it? Point out where the right to bear arms is defined or supported any more than the right to vote in the constitution. Is there anything there to give one right more importance or standing than the other right? If the answer is so simple for you, it should be easy for you to point it out.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

Hang leftist turds like you. Works for me .

Of course it does, but you're an ass hole who can't point out where I'm wrong.

 

[BULLDOG]

OK......That was stupid.

Show me the constitutional text covering the right to vote.

OK. It's mentioned 5 times.

Scholars and courts often note that the Constitution nowhere says, "All individuals have the right to vote." It simply rules out specific limitations on "the right to vote." A right not guaranteed in affirmative terms isn't really a "right" in a fundamental sense, this reading suggests.

But if the Constitution has to say "here is a specific right and we now guarantee that right to every person," there are almost no rights in the Constitution. Linguistically, our Constitution is more in the rights-preserving than in the right-proclaiming business. The First Amendment doesn't say "every person has the right to free speech and free exercise of religion." In the Second, the right to "keep and bear arms" isn't defined, but rather shall not be "abridged." In the Fourth, "[t]he right of the people to be secure ... against unreasonable searches and seizures" isn't defined, but instead "shall not be violated." In the Seventh, "the right of (civil) trial by jury" -- whatever that is -- "shall be preserved." And so on.


In those terms, it ought to mean something that the right to vote is singled out more often than any other. Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment imposes a penalty upon states that deny or abridge "the right to vote at any [federal or state] election ... to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, ... except for participation in rebellion, or other crime." The Fifteenth states that "[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote" can't be abridged by race; the Nineteenth says that the same right can't be abridged by sex; the Twenty-Fourth says that "the right of citizens of the United States to vote" in federal elections can't be blocked by a poll tax; and the Twenty-Sixth protects "[t]he right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote."
Voting: Right or Privilege?

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

"The Right of the People to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed" is pretty friggin' clear language even for the 18th Century. They knew an over zealous over restrictive govt could infringe on the People freedom with force if the Populace was not permitted to remain armed against it. It doesn't say or give any instruction as to where they may be Kept or for what purpose, because it's none of the govts business.

It also says the right to vote will not be denied. This started from an idiot who claimed the right to vote is not in the constitution. That right is defined and protected at least as much as the right to bear arms.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Oh, the glorious bliss of a public education. You must be completely orgasmic, all the time.

Your examples illustrate specific constitutional proscriptions by which voting cannot be denied. None grant a general right to vote.

By your own argument, the 26th amendment granted those 18 or older the vote. It also did not grant a general right to vote, and certainly not for every person, as there is no such thing, and indeed the vote can be removed from any person for any number of reasons.

Where exactly is the right to bear arms specifically granted, or even defined? It says that right cannot be infringed, but it doesn't grant a specific general right to bear arms, and certainly not for every person. How are the two situations materially different?

The 2A does grant a specific right, and absolutely restricts the federal government from imposing any infringement.

Great. Where does it do that? We both know that it says that right can't be infringed, but that doesn't confirm the right to bear arms any more than similar parts of the constitution confirms the right to vote. What do you think is the difference?

Hang leftist turds like you. Works for me .

Of course it does, but you're an ass hole who can't point out where I'm wrong.

Of course I can, it's right around Amendment 2, buttnugget.

"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."

Constitution of the United States - We the People