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

[2aguy]

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

Blah blah blah debunked "facts" on repeat blah blah blah

You're not a serious person. Go away.

Whether that is an accurate number for the number of times guns are used to stop crimes doesn't have much, if any, affect on what people own guns for. I think self defense is certainly one of the top reasons people own guns, not simply recreation.

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Yeah...except it isn't.....actual research shows most people get guns for self defense...

 

[2aguy]

I would like to see the 2nd re-written for clarity.

One might argue that a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of a free state and therefore the second is invalid, I suppose.

You've inadvertently and "jokingly" hit upon a profound truth. The 2nd Amendment has basically become an afforded right to recreation. Which is stupid.

Americas use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack and to save lives, many times to stop mass shooters......so no, it is not for recreational purposes...it is to protect the lives of Americans....

Blah blah blah debunked "facts" on repeat blah blah blah

You're not a serious person. Go away.

Whether that is an accurate number for the number of times guns are used to stop crimes doesn't have much, if any, affect on what people own guns for. I think self defense is certainly one of the top reasons people own guns, not simply recreation.

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Here you go....

Pew....

Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason

Gallup...

Personal Safety Top Reason Americans Own Guns Today

 

[Divine Wind]

No Way!!! - That would create a "Marshal Law" "Police State"

It MUST always be everyone allowed to freely vote once per election. Restricting any segment of the population will eventually enslave them.

It's Martial Law.

Disagreed. The Founders originally allowed only landed or tax-paying citizens to vote. The theory being that those voting should have a stake in the nation (i.e., skin in the game). Over the years more and more people were allowed to vote until we have an abortion of a nation. If we're going to vote whether or not we should go to war, shouldn't those who vote know what it means to send our troops into battle? The 2003 Iraq War was started by a bunch of RW chickenhawks and LW spineless cowards. Very few of them had ever served in the military.

Perhaps we should change the rule about automatically being born a full citizen and require every American 18 years old or older to pass a citizenship exam before being allowed to vote.

Winning the Vote: A History of Voting Rights | The Gilder Lehrman Institute of American History
The basic principle that governed voting in colonial America was that voters should have a “stake in society.” Leading colonists associated democracy with disorder and mob rule, and believed that the vote should be restricted to those who owned property or paid taxes. Only these people, in their view, were committed members of the community and were sufficiently independent to vote. Each of the thirteen colonies required voters either to own a certain amount of land or personal property, or to pay a specified amount in taxes.

 

[Divine Wind]

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Agreed it's the #1 use of guns in this country, but not the #1 reason to own a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Constitution tells us our right to bear arms in order to have a well regulated militia will not be infringed.
No one has ever expected those firearms to be free.

Explain how a $450 tax laid on the purchase of a firearm does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Explain how a $450 tax laid on undergoing an abortion infringes on the right to choose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Recreation is one of the "traditionally lawful uses" for a firearm protected by the 2nd.
So....?

 

[Divine Wind]

Explain how a $450 tax laid on the purchase of a firearm does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Explain how a $450 tax laid on undergoing an abortion infringes on the right to choose.

Well said and agreed.

Add to this, "Explain how a $450 tax laid on voting infringes on one's right to vote".

 

[Montrovant]

Explain how a $450 tax laid on the purchase of a firearm does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Explain how a $450 tax laid on undergoing an abortion infringes on the right to choose.

Well said and agreed.

Add to this, "Explain how a $450 tax laid on voting infringes on one's right to vote".

Poll taxes are specifically denied by the 24th amendment. That's a bit different.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Explain how a $450 tax laid on the purchase of a firearm does not infringe the right to keep and bear arms.
Explain how a $450 tax laid on undergoing an abortion infringes on the right to choose.

Well said and agreed.
Add to this, "Explain how a $450 tax laid on voting infringes on one's right to vote".

Poll taxes are specifically denied by the 24th amendment. That's a bit different.

Then, a $450 registration fee.

 

[Divine Wind]

Poll taxes are specifically denied by the 24th amendment. That's a bit different.

Thanks for agreeing that it would, indeed, be a violation of rights.

Furthermore, the 24th Amendment only applies to Federal elections, not state, city, local.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Once again, do you think it's an infringement of rights to impose a $450 fee to vote on state laws and officials? City ordinances?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Poll taxes are specifically denied by the 24th amendment. That's a bit different.

Thanks for agreeing that it would, indeed, be a violation of rights.

Furthermore, the 24th Amendment only applies to Federal elections, not state, city, local.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Once again, do you think it's an infringement of rights to impose a $450 fee to vote on state laws and officials? City ordinances?

State referendums? Governor?

 

[Montrovant]

Poll taxes are specifically denied by the 24th amendment. That's a bit different.

Thanks for agreeing that it would, indeed, be a violation of rights.

Furthermore, the 24th Amendment only applies to Federal elections, not state, city, local.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Once again, do you think it's an infringement of rights to impose a $450 fee to vote on state laws and officials? City ordinances?

I'm not arguing for abortion or gun taxes, just pointing out that the Constitution has a specific provision for poll taxes, making it a somewhat different argument. Don't forget that before the 24th, poll taxes were considered legally acceptable.

 

[Divine Wind]

I'm not arguing for abortion or gun taxes, just pointing out that the Constitution has a specific provision for poll taxes, making it a somewhat different argument. Don't forget that before the 24th, poll taxes were considered legally acceptable.

Only for Federal elections. Imposing a $450 fee for state and local elections is legal.

Do you think imposing a $450 tax on owning a firearm is an imposition upon one's Second Amendment rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Poll taxes are specifically denied by the 24th amendment. That's a bit different.

Thanks for agreeing that it would, indeed, be a violation of rights.

Furthermore, the 24th Amendment only applies to Federal elections, not state, city, local.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Once again, do you think it's an infringement of rights to impose a $450 fee to vote on state laws and officials? City ordinances?

I'm not arguing for abortion or gun taxes, just pointing out that the Constitution has a specific provision for poll taxes, making it a somewhat different argument. Don't forget that before the 24th, poll taxes were considered legally acceptable.

That depends.

24th Amendment says '...shall not be denied or abridged..."
2nd Amendment says "...shall not be infringed..."

If not every regulation qualifies as an infringement, then not every regulation qualifies as a denial or abridgement.

Does a $5 poll tax deny the right to vote? Does it abridge the right to vote?
A $450 tax apparently does not infringe on the right to arms - how then does a $450 tax deny or abridge the right to vote?

 

[GaryDog]

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Recreation is one of the "traditionally lawful uses" for a firearm protected by the 2nd.
So....?

Absolutely not, and the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. It's not 1787 anymore. We don't shoot raccoons to eat.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country. And it's the leading factor in motivating rednecks to get angry when anyone, say, suggests taking them out of the hands of terrorists.

Recreation is one of the "traditionally lawful uses" for a firearm protected by the 2nd.
So....?

Absolutely not....

Recreation is. absolutely,.one of the "traditionally lawful" purposes for a firearm. As such, the 2nd protects it.

and the 2nd Amendment should be abolished.

Until it is, it remains in effect and you do not get to ignore it.

I guarantee recreation is the # 1 use for guns in this country.

I ask again: So?

.

 

[Divine Wind]

Absolutely not, and the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. It's not 1787 anymore. We don't shoot raccoons to eat.

Spoken like a true Constitution-shredding liberal with no clue as to why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.

 

[GaryDog]

Absolutely not, and the 2nd Amendment should be abolished. It's not 1787 anymore. We don't shoot raccoons to eat.

Spoken like a true Constitution-shredding liberal with no clue as to why the Second Amendment is in the Constitution.

I know exactly why it's there. And that reason has gone the way of the musket.

 

[Divine Wind]

I know exactly why it's there. And that reason has gone the way of the musket.

Obviously untrue as your raccoon remark illustrated.

 

[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. That reason is gone, and I figured that'd be obvious to all with working frontal lobes.

The only reasons left are recreation. Another "valid" reason is hunting, and used the raccoon remark to preemptively destroy that reasoning.