Gun ownership right Vs Voting right?

[Linuxcooldude]

The right for "militias" to bear arms was put in the Constitution because they did not want a standing army. That went out the window but the "right" remains largely so gun makers can sell guns. The founders would turn in their graves if they could see how that amendment was corrupted and the wanton killing it has caused.

That went out the window when Washington really needed an Army during the revolution from the British. Since America just finished fighting the war with the British, the use of the 2A would prevent the possibility of a tyrannical government or being able to fight one if the need arose just like they finished doing. Turn in their graves? No. Only the constant attempt to control and possibility to take them away.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Did that result in a higher body count than, if, say, a person who didn't do those things had run the show this last year and a half?

Yes. Extremely obviously so.







“Many of the cases and deaths were avoidable," they said, adding that "instead of galvanizing the US populace to fight the pandemic, President Trump publicly dismissed its threat (despite privately acknowledging it), discouraged action as infection spread, and eschewed international cooperation."

Damning analysis of Trump's pandemic response suggested 40% of US COVID-19 deaths could have been avoided

A medical journal compared the number of US COVID-19 deaths — the highest in the world — with the deaths in similarly wealthy countries.

www.google.com

“He has, you could say, blood on his hands,” Whalen said of Trump. “He knew this was a threat and really did not do what was necessary to respond to it in a thoughtful and resourceful way.”

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

"Many of the cases and deaths were avoidable. Instead of galvanizing the US populace to fight the pandemic, President Trump publicly dismissed its threat (despite privately acknowledging it), discouraged action as infection spread, and eschewed international cooperation," it continues.”

40% of U.S. COVID Deaths Could Have Been Averted If It Weren't for Trump

"Instead of galvanizing the US populace to fight the pandemic, President Trump publicly dismissed its threat," the report in The Lancet explains.

www.google.com

And on, and on, and on ....

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Not a fallacy. Why do I have to have an ID to exercise one right but not the other. Why are you so committed to your double standards?

Actually, ID required for a 2A right and not necessarily an ID for a non-right to vote under the Constitution.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Clearly, you don’t understand the realities of 2A.

SCOTUS has made clear that 2A is not without limits. Federal and state governments can place restrictions and processes, including requiring ID, to firearms purchases.

Which we also have limits on voting as well.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

Which we also have limits on voting as well.

“Limits”?

 

[iguanaman]

That went out the window when Washington really needed an Army during the revolution from the British. Since America just finished fighting the war with the British, the use of the 2A would prevent the possibility of a tyrannical government or being able to fight one if the need arose just like they finished doing. Turn in their graves? No. Only the constant attempt to control and possibility to take them away.

You have a glaring lack of knowledge about American history. The irony is that private guns are more often used against our own Republic and would be useless against an invading army. The 2nd amendment was meant to be a replacement for a standing army and "well regulated militias" were indeed used for that purpose for over 100 years. Now that they are history so should the 2nd. The proliferation of guns based on such ignorance and misconception is unfortunate unless you are a gun maker.

A Glance at the Past
The Founding Fathers are famous for arguing against a large standing military. Although European nations all had massive armies and navies that were expensive to maintain, it was something the young nation could not afford. Plus, many early Americans saw those great military forces as the government’s first means of controlling the citizens. Given that we had just found a revolution against government oppression, our early leaders preferred to have a relatively small army and navy supported by local state militias which would only be called to duty when needed, something which would require state approval. Not only did this defer cost, but also provided a sort of check and balance against Federal abuse.

This practice was the standard throughout the first 100 plus years of American history. Following the Revolutionary War, militias were disbanded and the members returned to civilian occupations, even the main Army and Navy were similarly dissolved for a short time but reestablished in a much smaller form. When trouble arose, the militias were called up, and the military quickly swelled in numbers and again disbanded once no longer needed. This practice was followed after each major conflict – War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War and even World War 1; each time, the US called up temporary forces to defeat the threat and once the fighting ceased the troops were sent home.
https://blog.uspatriottactical.com/no-standing-army-an-american-tradition/

 

[bongsaway]

'elections have consequences'

Boy do they and the republicans are screaming about those consequences every day.

 

[iguanaman]

I give you credit, you are among the most consistent in being wrong about the second amendment. It happens when someone knows the second amendment is an obstacle to the gun bans you want, and you want to reinterpret it

You tell me how I have not interpreted history correctly then. For most of our history we used "well regulated militias" INSTEAD of a standing army as our fighting force. Since WWII that has been abandoned so how does the 2nd amendment still apply? Are you a member of a well regulated militia that can be called up in times of war? No you are not, no one is.

A Glance at the Past
The Founding Fathers are famous for arguing against a large standing military. Although European nations all had massive armies and navies that were expensive to maintain, it was something the young nation could not afford. Plus, many early Americans saw those great military forces as the government’s first means of controlling the citizens. Given that we had just found a revolution against government oppression, our early leaders preferred to have a relatively small army and navy supported by local state militias which would only be called to duty when needed, something which would require state approval. Not only did this defer cost, but also provided a sort of check and balance against Federal abuse.

This practice was the standard throughout the first 100 plus years of American history. Following the Revolutionary War, militias were disbanded and the members returned to civilian occupations, even the main Army and Navy were similarly dissolved for a short time but reestablished in a much smaller form. When trouble arose, the militias were called up, and the military quickly swelled in numbers and again disbanded once no longer needed. This practice was followed after each major conflict – War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War and even World War 1; each time, the US called up temporary forces to defeat the threat and once the fighting ceased the troops were sent home.
https://blog.uspatriottactical.com/no-standing-army-an-american-tradition/

 

[iguanaman]

Last I checked, Donald Trump killed 500,000 americans.

And that does not count the 1000's of Yemeni woman and children that died as a result of the one term mistake's arm sales to the Saudi's. Thank god that Biden stopped them.

 

[TurtleDude]

You tell me how I have not interpreted history correctly then. For most of our history we used "well regulated militias" INSTEAD of a standing army as our fighting force. Since WWII that has been abandoned so how does the 2nd amendment still apply? Are you a member of a well regulated militia that can be called up in times of war? No you are not, no one is.

A Glance at the Past
The Founding Fathers are famous for arguing against a large standing military. Although European nations all had massive armies and navies that were expensive to maintain, it was something the young nation could not afford. Plus, many early Americans saw those great military forces as the government’s first means of controlling the citizens. Given that we had just found a revolution against government oppression, our early leaders preferred to have a relatively small army and navy supported by local state militias which would only be called to duty when needed, something which would require state approval. Not only did this defer cost, but also provided a sort of check and balance against Federal abuse.

This practice was the standard throughout the first 100 plus years of American history. Following the Revolutionary War, militias were disbanded and the members returned to civilian occupations, even the main Army and Navy were similarly dissolved for a short time but reestablished in a much smaller form. When trouble arose, the militias were called up, and the military quickly swelled in numbers and again disbanded once no longer needed. This practice was followed after each major conflict – War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War and even World War 1; each time, the US called up temporary forces to defeat the threat and once the fighting ceased the troops were sent home.
https://blog.uspatriottactical.com/no-standing-army-an-american-tradition/

that has ZERO to do with the fact that the federal government was NEVER GIVEN any power to deny private citizens their choice as to arms.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

that has ZERO to do with the fact that the federal government was NEVER GIVEN any power to deny private citizens their choice as to arms.

Understanding that you already know the truth of your above assertion, consider the below a friendly reminder.

SCOTUS is the final arbiter of law, and as interpreting our Constitution is it’s primary duty, that body has the Constitutional authority to determine what weapons civilians may or may not own, and the conditions under which they are entitled, and has done so many times.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

You have a glaring lack of knowledge about American history. The irony is that private guns are more often used against our own Republic and would be useless against an invading army. The 2nd amendment was meant to be a replacement for a standing army and "well regulated militias" were indeed used for that purpose for over 100 years. Now that they are history so should the 2nd. The proliferation of guns based on such ignorance and misconception is unfortunate unless you are a gun maker.

A Glance at the Past
The Founding Fathers are famous for arguing against a large standing military. Although European nations all had massive armies and navies that were expensive to maintain, it was something the young nation could not afford. Plus, many early Americans saw those great military forces as the government’s first means of controlling the citizens. Given that we had just found a revolution against government oppression, our early leaders preferred to have a relatively small army and navy supported by local state militias which would only be called to duty when needed, something which would require state approval. Not only did this defer cost, but also provided a sort of check and balance against Federal abuse.

This practice was the standard throughout the first 100 plus years of American history. Following the Revolutionary War, militias were disbanded and the members returned to civilian occupations, even the main Army and Navy were similarly dissolved for a short time but reestablished in a much smaller form. When trouble arose, the militias were called up, and the military quickly swelled in numbers and again disbanded once no longer needed. This practice was followed after each major conflict – War of 1812, Civil War, Spanish-American War and even World War 1; each time, the US called up temporary forces to defeat the threat and once the fighting ceased the troops were sent home.
https://blog.uspatriottactical.com/no-standing-army-an-american-tradition/

Congrats, an opinion piece vs historical fact...slow clap.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Why do you think standing Armies were not popular to some? They just fought their own government in tyranny.

D.C vs Heller already confirms firearm ownership without militia membership. That is already historical fact.

 

[iguanaman]

Congrats, an opinion piece vs historical fact...slow clap.

Disclaimer: The content in this article is the opinion of the writer and does not necessarily reflect the policies or opinions of US Patriot Tactical.

Why do you think standing Armies were not popular to some? They just fought their own government in tyranny.

D.C vs Heller already confirms firearm ownership without militia membership. That is already historical fact.

The history in that piece is correct and SC rulings can be changed. We cannot keep up this flood of guns going to a small minority who can't stop buying more and more of them. It is asking for heartache. And then there is this...

Gun ownership cons: Having a gun in the house makes living there statistically more dangerous. Unfortunately, guns can't discriminate between criminals and innocent bystanders. Studies have shown that unintentional shootings are four times as common as occurrences of gun use in legitimate home defense situations.
https://www.covesmart.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-gun-ownership-for-home-security

 

[KevinKohler]

Yes. Extremely obviously so.







“Many of the cases and deaths were avoidable," they said, adding that "instead of galvanizing the US populace to fight the pandemic, President Trump publicly dismissed its threat (despite privately acknowledging it), discouraged action as infection spread, and eschewed international cooperation."

Damning analysis of Trump's pandemic response suggested 40% of US COVID-19 deaths could have been avoided

A medical journal compared the number of US COVID-19 deaths — the highest in the world — with the deaths in similarly wealthy countries.

www.google.com

“He has, you could say, blood on his hands,” Whalen said of Trump. “He knew this was a threat and really did not do what was necessary to respond to it in a thoughtful and resourceful way.”

Redirect Notice

www.google.com

"Many of the cases and deaths were avoidable. Instead of galvanizing the US populace to fight the pandemic, President Trump publicly dismissed its threat (despite privately acknowledging it), discouraged action as infection spread, and eschewed international cooperation," it continues.”

40% of U.S. COVID Deaths Could Have Been Averted If It Weren't for Trump

"Instead of galvanizing the US populace to fight the pandemic, President Trump publicly dismissed its threat," the report in The Lancet explains.

www.google.com

And on, and on, and on ....

So, then, voting 4 years ago killed more people than gun purchases, in those 4 years combined.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

The history in that piece is correct and SC rulings can be changed. We cannot keep up this flood of guns going to a small minority who can't stop buying more and more of them. It is asking for heartache. And then there is this...

Gun ownership cons: Having a gun in the house makes living there statistically more dangerous. Unfortunately, guns can't discriminate between criminals and innocent bystanders. Studies have shown that unintentional shootings are four times as common as occurrences of gun use in legitimate home defense situations.
https://www.covesmart.com/blog/pros-and-cons-of-gun-ownership-for-home-security

Not only that, but the Militia Act of 1792 had a similar mandate, obliging Founding-era Americans to privately procure muskets, ammo, pouches. Which also confirms private ownership of firearms.

Stating the Constitution or rulings can be changed has nothing to do with present day. If or when they change, then you can have that discussion.

 

[KevinKohler]

And that does not count the 1000's of Yemeni woman and children that died as a result of the one term mistake's arm sales to the Saudi's. Thank god that Biden stopped them.

Uh...we've been selling arms to the Saudis for decades. Shit, Saudi Arabia drives the CT economy. Obama helped broker a 90,000,000 dollar deal between them and ONE business, sikorsky helicopter, maker of Blackhawks. And that is just ONE SINGLE company.

Trump was just business as usual, on that.

Regardless, seems to me, voters are the root cause of all the deaths that resulted from the Trump presidency, which is WAY more deaths than guns.

 

[RaleBulgarian]

So, then, voting 4 years ago killed more people than gun purchases, in those 4 years combined.

As your last post appeared to be constructed to illicit a specific response, I anticipated a follow up that would, somehow, make a point. It’s disappointing that it didn’t.

 

[KevinKohler]

As your last post appeared to be constructed to illicit a specific response, I anticipated a follow up that would, somehow, make a point. It’s disappointing that it didn’t.

I'm simply saying that its ODD that you want LESS security surrounding an action that has the potential to end/ruin/negatively affect PROFOUNDLY more people, than you do for another, equally protected action, that has far less potential for harm.

Think about it, lol. Say, Tampa, FL, passes more stringent gun control laws...GREAT! Right?

But you can't drink the water, or swim in it, or eat anything from it, because, you know...voting.

Kinda crazy, imo.

 

[iguanaman]

Uh...we've been selling arms to the Saudis for decades. Shit, Saudi Arabia drives the CT economy. Obama helped broker a 90,000,000 dollar deal between them and ONE business, sikorsky helicopter, maker of Blackhawks. And that is just ONE SINGLE company.

Trump was just business as usual, on that.

Regardless, seems to me, voters are the root cause of all the deaths that resulted from the Trump presidency, which is WAY more deaths than guns.

If you mean those that voted for the one term mistake in 2016 are responsible for the poor response to the virus that resulted in the US have the most cases and deaths from the disease I would agree but they had help too from Russia. Meanwhile what you call "business as usual" was not that. Mr. One and done's "emergency order" to bypass Congress and push thru a $8 billion arms sale without a doubt was responsible for 1000's of civilian deaths in Yemen too and was unprecedented in modern history.

In May, the Trump administration issued an emergency declaration to push through an $8.1 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan without congressional approval. Proponents of the deal contend that a fresh supply of weapons is necessary to counter mounting Iranian aggression that threatens to destabilize the region and put U.S. security interests at risk. However, the declaration provoked anger from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who have criticized civilian deaths caused by Saudi-led air strikes in Yemen.

“There is no emergency to the United States or to UAE or to Saudi Arabia regarding the war in Yemen,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., who introduced the measure to stop the deal, said on the House floor before the 246-180 vote. “It is a horrific humanitarian problem. The Saudi-led coalition has killed countless civilians. But it is not an emergency that would justify weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE that bypasses congressional procedure.”

Both chambers have registered their disapproval of the emergency declaration — the Senate voted to block the sale in June. President Trump, however, has pledged to shoot down the measure when it arrives at his desk.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/saudi-arabia-arms-deal-trump-what-to-know/

 

[iguanaman]

I'm simply saying that its ODD that you want LESS security surrounding an action that has the potential to end/ruin/negatively affect PROFOUNDLY more people, than you do for another, equally protected action, that has far less potential for harm.

Think about it, lol. Say, Tampa, FL, passes more stringent gun control laws...GREAT! Right?

But you can't drink the water, or swim in it, or eat anything from it, because, you know...voting.

Kinda crazy, imo.

Allowing a partisan State legislature to take over local election boards for any reason is not "more security" it invites fraud. We have bipartisan boards for a reason, they determine whose votes count.

 

[KevinKohler]

If you mean those that voted for the one term mistake in 2016 are responsible for the poor response to the virus that resulted in the US have the most cases and deaths from the disease I would agree but they had help too from Russia. Meanwhile what you call "business as usual" was not that. Mr. One and done's "emergency order" to bypass Congress and push thru a $8 billion arms sale without a doubt was responsible for 1000's of civilian deaths in Yemen too and was unprecedented in modern history.

In May, the Trump administration issued an emergency declaration to push through an $8.1 billion arms deal to Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Jordan without congressional approval. Proponents of the deal contend that a fresh supply of weapons is necessary to counter mounting Iranian aggression that threatens to destabilize the region and put U.S. security interests at risk. However, the declaration provoked anger from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers, who have criticized civilian deaths caused by Saudi-led air strikes in Yemen.

“There is no emergency to the United States or to UAE or to Saudi Arabia regarding the war in Yemen,” Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., who introduced the measure to stop the deal, said on the House floor before the 246-180 vote. “It is a horrific humanitarian problem. The Saudi-led coalition has killed countless civilians. But it is not an emergency that would justify weapons sales to Saudi Arabia and UAE that bypasses congressional procedure.”

Both chambers have registered their disapproval of the emergency declaration — the Senate voted to block the sale in June. President Trump, however, has pledged to shoot down the measure when it arrives at his desk.

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/saudi-arabia-arms-deal-trump-what-to-know/

Right. All that.

And yet...to buy a gun, which, at BEST, kills 35k per year...I need an ID, license, background check, waiting period, classes, registration, etc.

Go figure, right?

 

[RaleBulgarian]

I'm simply saying that its ODD that you want LESS security surrounding an action that has the potential to end/ruin/negatively affect PROFOUNDLY more people, than you do for another, equally protected action, that has far less potential for harm.

Think about it, lol. Say, Tampa, FL, passes more stringent gun control laws...GREAT! Right?

But you can't drink the water, or swim in it, or eat anything from it, because, you know...voting.

Kinda crazy, imo.

Your perspective of my perspective is ODD. And completely incorrect.

Voter fraud is rare. No election has been decided by voter fraud. Those two statements are facts.

The right continues squealing, without proof, that voter ID’s are desperately needed to ensure fair elections.

The right, for decades, has deliberately sought ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. Also a fact.

Senator Lindsey Graham admitting the true dilemma of the right: “If we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country.”

The ID check requirement to purchase a firearm from an FFL is an entirely different matter.

Without an ID to go along with the required 4473, there’s no way to know if the person trying to purchase the firearm is who they claim to be. Not being able to verify a customer’s identity would make easy the purchases of firearms by those legally prohibited from having them.

That you don’t get the glaring differences between the two issues is embarrassing.

 

[KevinKohler]

Your perspective of my perspective is ODD. And completely incorrect.

Voter fraud is rare. No election has been decided by voter fraud. Those two statements are facts.

The right continues squealing, without proof, that voter ID’s are desperately needed to ensure fair elections.

The right, for decades, has deliberately sought ways to disenfranchise minorities and the poor. Also a fact.

Senator Lindsey Graham admitting the true dilemma of the right: “If we don’t do something about voting by mail, we’re going to lose the ability to elect a Republican in this country.”

The ID check requirement to purchase a firearm from an FFL is an entirely similar matter.

Without an ID to go along with the required 4473, there’s no way to know if the person trying to purchase the firearm is who they claim to be. Not being able to verify a customer’s identity would make easy the purchases of firearms by those legally prohibited from having them.

That you don’t get the glaring differences between the two issues is embarrassing.

Your perspective of my perspective is ODD. And completely incorrect.

Gun murders are rare. No significant population decrease has been the result of gun violence by private citizens. Those two statements are facts.

The left continues squealing, without proof, that "assault weapons" bans (as if anyone can actually define the term), waiting times, registration, background checks, permits, mandatory training, out right repeal of the second, ID checks, licensing, etc will reduce in any way crime, and specifically, gun crime.

The left, for decades, has deliberately sought ways to infringe and restrict the rights of law abiding americans. Also a fact.

President Obama admitting the true goal of the left...
“I don’t believe people should be able to own guns.”

The ID check requirement to vote for future government leadership is an entirely similar matter.

Without an ID to go along with the required in person attendance(excepting special circumstances), there’s no way to know if the person trying to cast the vote is the person they claim to be. Not being able to verify a voters identity would make easy the casting of votes by those legally prohibited from having them.

That you don’t get the glaring similarities between the two issues is embarrassing.

 

[BrotherFease]

Last time I check both are constitutional rights. However, I never hear leftists complaining about ID/background check to buy a gun from licensed gun dealers.

How many people have been killed by a ballot?

 

[iguanaman]

Right. All that.

And yet...to buy a gun, which, at BEST, kills 35k per year...I need an ID, license, background check, waiting period, classes, registration, etc.

Go figure, right?

Every preventable death is a tragedy. I don't see your point at all.