- Joined
- May 22, 2012
- Messages
- 104,410
- Reaction score
- 67,633
- Location
- Uhland, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Interesting. So you would agree that it's acceptable to ban guns so long as it's the state making that decision?
Standard semantic nonsense. A republic is a type of democracy, but not a direct democracy. Squares and rectangles, and whatnot.1. We do not - thank God - live in a Democracy. We live in a Representative Republic.
2. The ability to exercise the franchise is not the single fundamental right. If you were going to argue for one, that one would probably be self-defense, or speech. You do not have a right to vote. You have a right not to have the vote taken from you for a variety of explicitly and narrowly defined reasons.
Standard semantic nonsense. A republic is a type of democracy, but not a direct democracy. Squares and rectangles, and whatnot.
It's the single fundamental right to a democracy because without voting it isn't a democracy.
While some countries do in fact give their felons the right to vote, that is for a different debate. The operative word in this thread is ex-felon, as in, those who have already served their sentences and paid their debt to society.
Time served is not the only form of a debt to society. Losing voting rights counts as one of those debts.
And it's unjust. It makes a mockery of no taxation without representation and the bar is set ridiculously low for for how easy it is to strip a person of their voting rights besides.
the only reason holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in democrat votes.
No one should lose their right to vote at any point.
Let me ask you, Maggie: do you believe that it's acceptable that someone who's served their sentence and repaid their debt to society should never be allowed to vote again?
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.
It's about goddamn time that such laws that fly hilariously in the face of the spirit of the constitution are confronted at the higher levels of government. While I doubt there's currently any political momentum to create Federal laws that overturn state disenfranchisement laws, maybe this will help start the public dialogue needed to do so. Voter disenfranchisement laws are are an utter travesty.
The only reason Holder is opening his corrupt mouth is because he thinks he can bring in Democrat votes.
bingo!
While some countries do in fact give their felons the right to vote, that is for a different debate. The operative word in this thread is ex-felon, as in, those who have already served their sentences and paid their debt to society.
Standard semantic nonsense. A republic is a type of democracy, but not a direct democracy. Squares and rectangles, and whatnot.
It's the single fundamental right to a democracy because without voting it isn't a democracy.
And in every one of those cases, the burden is on others to justify restricting a right, not on me to justify why I should have it in the first place.
That's fine. It would help push the need to simply execute these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen who commit Felonies instead of incarcerating them. THEN they can vote (but only in Chicago).
Should ex-cons be allowed to own guns?
That's fine. It would help push the need to simply execute these worthless wastes of flesh and oxygen who commit Felonies instead of incarcerating them. THEN they can vote (but only in Chicago).
Apply that to authoritarians and you got a deal. Authoritarians are worthless pieces of flesh as well.
Do you believe that people who've served their sentences should lose their right to vote for the rest of their lives, or are you more concerned that ex-felons might vote Democrat?
So you want the government to kill authoritarians?
Sen. Rand Paul, who has been trying to attract liberal DEMs with his NSA and drone policies,Former felons who successfully complete their probation or parole should have their right to vote restored..
Former felons who successfully complete their probation or parole should have their right to vote restored. Being denied the right to vote is not a deterrent to crime. Having the right to vote restored can help an ex-con feel like they are part of society, which is likely to somewhat reduce the chance of committing another crime. Also, some crimes, particularly drug laws, are an attack on people holding certain world views, in other words, they are largely thought crimes or political crimes. A legitimate democracy (democratic republic) does not disenfranchise people for holding an unpopular worldview.
No, that was in response to Tigger, who is a self-proclaimed authoritarian who believes using alcohol should be under the death penalty. Just throwing it back at him.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?