How many more??? [W:611]

[dnsmith]

But I see no lax election laws. If I had my way, I would expand them to make it easier to vote - not harder. I see no problem at all with the situation that a little more democratic action in the process would not be helped by.

It is already too easy to vote in some places. In Florida there were the names of over 600 dead people written on the list of voters in the 2000 election. It was well publicized at the time.. It is a shame our left wing MSM had taken down all the web pages with the news stories. Voting should be limited to citizens. Simply being alive is not enough reason to allow even a citizen to vote. One should at the very least know what the country is all about. Political illiterates mark a ballot without the slightest idea of what is good for the country or himself. As it is, our elections tend to be about two groups: Those who can think on one side; and those who vote themselves largesse on the other.

 

[YoungConserv]

What right is NOT in the Constitution that you refer to?

We were once a republic. Two centuries of changes both to the Constitution and our body politic changed that forever. It is not 1787 any longer and we do not have the same government that we had then either.

The right to vote for president and senate is not mentioned only that if we do directly vote for them we can not restrict that vote on basis of race sex or age of majority. We are still a republic and you don't want a democracy because a democracy is 3 rapists and a wwomen voting on what constitutes rape.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Here's an idea. Instead of painting Liberals with such a broad brush, which you seem to do quite often, how about you propose an alternative solution to the problem. People going around and shooting up schools/churches/businesses is a bad thing, right? What can we do to prevent/identify the problems before they happen?

Note that I lean slightly liberal, yet I have no desire to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. I don't believe gun control is the solution. But far too often there is a knee-jerk reaction (by both sides) to legislation that they don't agree with. So lets put away the paintbrush and figure out a solution.

You see though, this is where the liberal hypocrisy shines through like the sun. You mentioned voting. Yes, even constitutional rights can be "regulated", like you mentioned. But liberals OPPOSE regulations that would make it more difficult to vote illegally. Hmmmmm......think about that. Liberals support the government's authority to regulate our rights, but they don't support the government's responsibility to regulate those rights in a fashion that would prevent NON US CITIZENS from exercising that right. Oh the irony.....hahahahaha

You see my friend, you are caught in this hypocrisy, because you are debating from a position of lofty mindedness, not reality. Liberals aggressively oppose voter ID laws. Voter ID laws are a form of "regulation". What is it regulating? It's regulating "who" can cast a vote. Conservatives argue that it's too easy for a non US citizen to vote, and they are right. However, liberals oppose such "regulation".

So, let's start over. You mean to tell me that liberals want to regulate gun usage and ownership, but they don't want to regulate who's actually casting votes in this country? Why yes, that's the truth. So spare us any lecture about liberals simply wanting to do a common sensical thing when it comes to regulating the 2nd amendment. I don't buy it for a second. They want their cake, and they want to eat it too. Liberals have been after guns for decades, and they see this as an opportunity to take another step closer to confiscation.

 

[dnsmith]

The first two definitions are very different than the third. Not only in usage and what they mean by the fact that the third is identified as being little used and it is the only incremental one in the bunch.

WE ARE NOT talking about infringements as hinderances. The Constitution DOES NOT use that language and it is participating in lies and intellectual fraud to pretend otherwise.

Please DO NOT attempt to move the goal posts. Please DO NOT attempt to put words in there which the Founders did not put in there. Please DO NOT attempt to pass off the rare and little used while ignoriong the common usage of the day simple because it fits your 21st century political ideology and self imposed belief system.

It is intellectually and inherently fraudulent to do so.

What about "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Fortunately the USSC held that that right is an individual right.

 

[Cilogy]

2 we are not in a democracy but a republic.

Technically, democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. So really, we're more of a democratic republic.

 

[Federalist]

I asked you a question. Why are you getting so in attack mode?

Again: you said that your state Constitution says that the right of a person to keep and bear arms shall not be questioned.

So I ask you again for a second time - when a person attempts to purchase a firearm - no questions can be asked of them?

It says that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned. That means that the citizenry in general are assumed to have the right to bear arms capable of effectively defending themselves and the state.

This, of course, doesn't mean that our commonwealth doesn't prohibit dangerous felons from bearing arms.

So in answer to you question, in Pennsylvania an individual may be stripped of his right to bear arms, and a firearms purchaser may be asked about his legal status in this regard.

 

[dnsmith]

The right to vote for president and senate is not mentioned only that if we do directly vote for them we can not restrict that vote on basis of race sex or age of majority. We are still a republic and you don't want a democracy because a democracy is 3 rapists and a women voting on what constitutes rape.

I believe se should go back to the original manner of selecting our president and senators as set forth in the constitution and keep politics where in belongs, at the local and state level. And we need to honor the bill of rights, not the lease of which is the 10th amendment which has been totally usurped by the federal government in recent years.

 

[dnsmith]

Here's an idea. Instead of painting Liberals with such a broad brush, which you seem to do quite often, how about you propose an alternative solution to the problem. People going around and shooting up schools/churches/businesses is a bad thing, right? What can we do to prevent/identify the problems before they happen?

Note that I lean slightly liberal, yet I have no desire to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. I don't believe gun control is the solution. But far too often there is a knee-jerk reaction (by both sides) to legislation that they don't agree with. So lets put away the paintbrush and figure out a solution.

I guess you over looked the fact that firearm homicide is not as prevalent as many claim it to be. Removing all drug and gang violence perpetrated on themselves, and all suicides, we really don't have that high a rate of gun violence at all.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

The problem we have is a people problem, not a firearm problem. The President has recognized that and the majority of the EOs he has proposed are designed to help us identify those with mental deficiencies. I personally think that is the right way to go.

I don't believe that gun violence is very prevalent here.

I guess you over looked the fact that firearm homicide is not as prevalent as many claim it to be. Removing all drug and gang violence perpetrated on themselves, and all suicides, we really don't have that high a rate of gun violence at all.

 

[Masada]

By all means. Lets have a debate on voter election fraud. Lets begin with you presenting the number of convictions for voter election fraud since the 2000 election so we can gauge if there is any real problem to be concerned about.

Yes - lets have that discussion.

WE cant discuss with you, primarily because you don't take precaution in actually READING correctly to begin with. I was speaking of voter REGISTRATION FRAUD, not actual voter election fraud. Did you conveniently change the subject, or did you misread?

ACORN alone has been CONVICTED, not just accused, of more than 56 counts of voter registration fraud, spanning over half a dozen states. Majority of ACORN members are African Americans who vote for Democrats 90% of the time, and in the case of Obama, 98, and 97% of the time respectively. In more than a dozen Philadelphia precints, where the populations are more than 70% black, Obama received 100% of the vote. 100%. Pretty amazing, seeing as how that's never happened ever before in the history of US elections.

Point being, liberals are all about regulating things like guns, but adamately oppose regulating voting in any manner, way, shape, or form. And dont even try mentioning regulation of abortion. When left entirely up to liberals, partial birth late term abortion was legal in this country. Yes, liberals believe in regulations alright, just as long as you aren't regulating drugs, abortion, marriage, voting, and immigration.

 

[jimbo]

Technically, democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. So really, we're more of a democratic republic.

Republics and democracies are mutually exclusive. Republics are ruled by law, in our case the Constitution. Democracies are ruled by the people directly. Most if not all republics are representative republics, only because someone has to make the laws.

We democratically vote on the representatives, not the issues.

 

[Cilogy]

WE cant discuss with you, primarily because you don't take precaution in actually READING correctly to begin with. I was speaking of voter REGISTRATION FRAUD, not actual voter election fraud. Did you conveniently change the subject, or did you misread?

ACORN alone has been CONVICTED, not just accused, of more than 56 counts of voter registration fraud, spanning over half a dozen states. Majority of ACORN members are African Americans who vote for Democrats 90% of the time, and in the case of Obama, 98, and 97% of the time respectively. In more than a dozen Philadelphia precints, where the populations are more than 70% black, Obama received 100% of the vote. 100%. Pretty amazing, seeing as how that's never happened ever before in the history of US elections.

Point being, liberals are all about regulating things like guns, but adamately oppose regulating voting in any manner, way, shape, or form. And dont even try mentioning regulation of abortion. When left entirely up to liberals, partial birth late term abortion was legal in this country. Yes, liberals believe in regulations alright, just as long as you aren't regulating drugs, abortion, marriage, voting, and immigration.

Dude, if you keep generalizing, it's not going to help improve your argument.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Technically, democracy and republic are not mutually exclusive.

All republics are democracies, but not all democracies are republics. So really, we're more of a democratic republic.

That's a little too simple. We're a federal republic, the federal is to only use powers granted to them, the states within the federation reserve all other powers, BUT all levels are prohibited from particular activities as spelled out in the constitution. The only "democratic" process we have is voting for representation. Prior to the 17th amendment our state representatives appointed senators, and the winning party on election day appoints electorates to vote for the president. In all, the only direct input from the people is in electing representation and filing redress of grievances. The longer we forget this the further we'll slide into the mess we have currently.

 

[Cilogy]

Republics and democracies are mutually exclusive. Republics are ruled by law, in our case the Constitution. Democracies are ruled by the people directly. Most if not all republics are representative republics, only because someone has to make the laws.

We democratically vote on the representatives, not the issues.

True, but I guess what I meant when I said that they're not mutually exclusive is that a republic is a type of government and a democracy is a type of electoral system.

I think people often mistake both of those terms to mean different types of government.

 

[haymarket]

It is already too easy to vote in some places. In Florida there were the names of over 600 dead people written on the list of voters in the 2000 election. It was well publicized at the time.. It is a shame our left wing MSM had taken down all the web pages with the news stories. Voting should be limited to citizens. Simply being alive is not enough reason to allow even a citizen to vote. One should at the very least know what the country is all about. Political illiterates mark a ballot without the slightest idea of what is good for the country or himself. As it is, our elections tend to be about two groups: Those who can think on one side; and those who vote themselves largesse on the other.

Any time you are ready to present the evidence about voter election fraud since the year 2000, I will be glad to revue it.

 

[Masada]

Here's an idea. Instead of painting Liberals with such a broad brush, which you seem to do quite often, how about you propose an alternative solution to the problem. People going around and shooting up schools/churches/businesses is a bad thing, right? What can we do to prevent/identify the problems before they happen?

Note that I lean slightly liberal, yet I have no desire to infringe on our 2nd amendment rights. I don't believe gun control is the solution. But far too often there is a knee-jerk reaction (by both sides) to legislation that they don't agree with. So lets put away the paintbrush and figure out a solution.

Sure, you bet. I'll offer a real solution, the only solution that will PREVENT more mass shootings.

You simply use armed security to protect schools. Obama's children attend a school that is guarded by armed guards. Vegas casinos are guarded by men with guns. You dont see them, they dont stick out, but there's no way that a gunman could get off enough rounds to kill 26 people in a Vegas casino. Another man with a gun would be there within seconds to confront him. Vegas casinos have some of the highest security in the world, so it's not surprising not to see many mass shootings in crowded casinos.

Armed guards at schools doesn't change people's messed up minds though. But it certainly minimizes the damage. If there had been armed guards at Sandy Hook elementary, there's no way 26 people die.

When thieves break into your house, we don't go out and blame crowbars and try to regulate them. We get stronger locks, thicker/heavier doors, security systems, cameras, a dog, we buy a gun, whatever....we take steps to PROTECT AND PREVENT. That's what we do in schools. We protect and prevent. Now, whether you leftists wanna agree or not, a gun is a deterrent. I've witnessed it personally. Criminals think twice about robbing a man with a gun. Criminals think twice about walking into a NRA banquet to go on a shooting spree. We deter acts of mass violence by protecting our kids with equal or greater force than the attackers. Will they pick another location? I'm sure crazy people will.

but then those locations can hire private security, with a gun, to protect themselves and their patrons. When we regulate guns out of the hands of good people, we make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. You may not agree with that, but it's the 100% unadulterated truth. I've witnessed it personally before. Guns deter criminals.

 

[haymarket]

The right to vote for president and senate is not mentioned only that if we do directly vote for them we can not restrict that vote on basis of race sex or age of majority. We are still a republic and you don't want a democracy because a democracy is 3 rapists and a wwomen voting on what constitutes rape.

the right to vote is mentioned no less than FIVE TIMES in the US Constitution in FIVE DIFFERENT PLACES in language passed at FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES.

You can label things anything you want to but the fact is that many changes in our Constitution have rendered the ancient republic a relic as our form of government.

 

[Masada]

Dude, if you keep generalizing, it's not going to help improve your argument.

I argue the rule, not the exception mate. You don't like my generalizations? I don't care. I generalize because my generalizations ARE THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.

If you wanna argue the exceptions to the rule, knock yourself out. I generalize liberals because "the rule" is, the majority of liberals are precisely how I describe them, because I'm being honest about liberal philosophy.

So, keep getting all worked up because you happen to maybe know one liberal who isnt like I'm describing! ARGUE THE RULE MATE, NOT THE EXCEPTION!

 

[haymarket]

What about "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" do you not understand? Fortunately the USSC held that that right is an individual right.

I understand it perfectly.

 

[haymarket]

It says that the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned. That means that the citizenry in general are assumed to have the right to bear arms capable of effectively defending themselves and the state.

This, of course, doesn't mean that our commonwealth doesn't prohibit dangerous felons from bearing arms.

So in answer to you question, in Pennsylvania an individual may be stripped of his right to bear arms, and a firearms purchaser may be asked about his legal status in this regard.

Thank you for clearly explaining that what the state constitution says is not what it actually means in real life.

 

[Chaddelamancha]

Columbine had armed guards.

Sure, you bet. I'll offer a real solution, the only solution that will PREVENT more mass shootings.

You simply use armed security to protect schools. Obama's children attend a school that is guarded by armed guards. Vegas casinos are guarded by men with guns. You dont see them, they dont stick out, but there's no way that a gunman could get off enough rounds to kill 26 people in a Vegas casino. Another man with a gun would be there within seconds to confront him. Vegas casinos have some of the highest security in the world, so it's not surprising not to see many mass shootings in crowded casinos.

Armed guards at schools doesn't change people's messed up minds though. But it certainly minimizes the damage. If there had been armed guards at Sandy Hook elementary, there's no way 26 people die.

When thieves break into your house, we don't go out and blame crowbars and try to regulate them. We get stronger locks, thicker/heavier doors, security systems, cameras, a dog, we buy a gun, whatever....we take steps to PROTECT AND PREVENT. That's what we do in schools. We protect and prevent. Now, whether you leftists wanna agree or not, a gun is a deterrent. I've witnessed it personally. Criminals think twice about robbing a man with a gun. Criminals think twice about walking into a NRA banquet to go on a shooting spree. We deter acts of mass violence by protecting our kids with equal or greater force than the attackers. Will they pick another location? I'm sure crazy people will.

but then those locations can hire private security, with a gun, to protect themselves and their patrons. When we regulate guns out of the hands of good people, we make it easier for criminals to commit crimes. You may not agree with that, but it's the 100% unadulterated truth. I've witnessed it personally before. Guns deter criminals.

 

[haymarket]

WE cant discuss with you, primarily because you don't take precaution in actually READING correctly to begin with. I was speaking of voter REGISTRATION FRAUD, not actual voter election fraud. Did you conveniently change the subject, or did you misread?

ACORN alone has been CONVICTED, not just accused, of more than 56 counts of voter registration fraud, spanning over half a dozen states. Majority of ACORN members are African Americans who vote for Democrats 90% of the time, and in the case of Obama, 98, and 97% of the time respectively. In more than a dozen Philadelphia precints, where the populations are more than 70% black, Obama received 100% of the vote. 100%. Pretty amazing, seeing as how that's never happened ever before in the history of US elections.

Voter registration fraud!?!?!?!?!?!?

And can you tell us the damage done to our political system because somebody was registered than perhaps should not have been?

This racial aspect of the issue seems to really captivate you. Why is that?

 

[Cilogy]

Obama's children attend a school that is guarded by armed guards.

Actually ...

But we spoke to parents who said they had never seen a guard on campus with a weapon. And Ellis Turner, associate head of Sidwell Friends, told us emphatically: “Sidwell Friends security officers do not carry guns.” (Note: this includes those listed as special police officers.)
Sidwell Friends, by the way, has two distinct campuses, a lower school in Bethesda and a middle and upper schools in Washington. So given shift rotations and three different schools, it appears that the 11 “armed guards” is really just one or two unarmed guards per school at a time.
The most recent data on school security by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that 27 percent of public schools have either police or security guards on campus, with virtually all of the larger schools (1,500 students or more) having such security. Indeed, 58 percent of all public high schools have security personnel.

4 Pinocchios for a slashing NRA ad on security at Sidwell Friends School - The Washington Post

 

[Chaddelamancha]

So that would make you a racist, sexist, bigot. I mean, if we were to generalize conservatives that is.

I argue the rule, not the exception mate. You don't like my generalizations? I don't care. I generalize because my generalizations ARE THE RULE, NOT THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE.

If you wanna argue the exceptions to the rule, knock yourself out. I generalize liberals because "the rule" is, the majority of liberals are precisely how I describe them, because I'm being honest about liberal philosophy.

So, keep getting all worked up because you happen to maybe know one liberal who isnt like I'm describing! ARGUE THE RULE MATE, NOT THE EXCEPTION!

 

[dnsmith]

I understand it perfectly.

Then you know that any infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional, right?