The "I don't want to abolish the 2nd" argument

[blackjack50]

Ok I am done with this. It has popped up a few times recently. I'm sick of it. The limitation of arms is also a problem.

I will use the 3 day waiting period as an example. What is the purpose of the waiting period? Cooling off period right? Allow time for background checks. It was one minor inconvenience for gun owners. Right? That is ALWAYS a part of the argument.

Why do we need them now? We can get an instant background check. The 3 day waiting period has done nothing to "cool off" buyers. It is just a waiting period. An excuse to have a little more control.

This isn't the only idea. If you look at the history of the Brady campaign...it has dozens of "inconveniences" or gun owners. Just "one" restriction. The problem is that those add up. That is the problem. I don't care if you think "well gun are ok as long as they have more restrictions," or "all guns should be banned." You are in the same camp of "just a little more."

How many restrictions are on you to vote? To practice religion? Unreasonable search and seizure? Would you support "just a little more" restriction on them? Probably not.

So you are a problem too. Unless you have a clearly defined line that you wouldn't cross...like background checks and no more...you are not a solution and you are a friend to the anti-gun control crowd because you support the idea of "just a little more" restriction.

 

[mtguy8787]

To use an analogy. We take the right to free speech for granted. What if you had to go through a long approval process, and to pay a fee, each time you wanted to speak out.

Would it still be free speech?

 

[blackjack50]

To use an analogy. We take the right to free speech for granted. What if you had to go through a long approval process, and to pay a fee, each time you wanted to speak out.

Would it still be free speech?

Or get a permit to protest.

Hey. It is just a little inconvenient. It is so people don't just riot.

 

[rocket88]

How many restrictions are on you to vote? To practice religion? Unreasonable search and seizure? Would you support "just a little more" restriction on them? Probably not.
.

Do you favor Voter ID? Isn't that "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Do you favor Voter ID? Isn't that "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote?

Voter ID is just common sense.
You live in town X and you voted at polling station Y. Period. Otherwise I can just keep driving around and hit every polling place on election day all day.
One man, one vote.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Do you favor Voter ID? Isn't that "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote?

No. I helps to ensure that a person may vote only once (in any given election), only in the district/state of their current residence and only as themselves. There is a clear state interest in having accountability of who votes, where they vote and how many times they vote. Obviously requiring the use of a valid, state issued, photo ID is not an unreasonable restriction, as it is required to purchase alcohol, tobacco, guns or ammo. To assert that this ID requirement is an undue discriminatory burden only to vote yet is a completely "reasonable restriction" for these other purposes is simply insane.

 

[rocket88]

Voter ID is just common sense.
You live in town X and you voted at polling station Y. Period. Otherwise I can just keep driving around and hit every polling place on election day all day.
One man, one vote.

If you read what I replied to, the OP said something about "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote. I was pointing out that it is a small restriction.

Besides which, Voter ID wouldn't change anything about election fraud as it exists. Anybody with enough money and a vested interest in gaming the system (like, say the Democratic and Republican parties) can get around it.

 

[rocket88]

No. I helps to ensure that a person may vote only once (in any given election), only in the district/state of their current residence and only as themselves. There is a clear state interest in having accountability of who votes, where they vote and how many times they vote. Obviously requiring the use of a valid, state issued, photo ID is not an unreasonable restriction, as it is required to purchase alcohol, tobacco, guns or ammo. To assert that this ID requirement is an undue discriminatory burden only to vote yet is a completely "reasonable restriction" for these other purposes is simply insane.

Which is only one kind of electoral fraud. One person casting 2 votes isn't the real issue in the context of the systematic fraud that both parties engage in for the election.

 

[YoungConserv]

Do you favor Voter ID? Isn't that "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote?

Then are you ok with no showing of Id to buy a gun?

 

[Aunt Spiker]

Ok I am done with this. It has popped up a few times recently. I'm sick of it. The limitation of arms is also a problem.

I will use the 3 day waiting period as an example. What is the purpose of the waiting period? Cooling off period right? Allow time for background checks. It was one minor inconvenience for gun owners. Right? That is ALWAYS a part of the argument.

Why do we need them now? We can get an instant background check. The 3 day waiting period has done nothing to "cool off" buyers. It is just a waiting period. An excuse to have a little more control.

This isn't the only idea. If you look at the history of the Brady campaign...it has dozens of "inconveniences" or gun owners. Just "one" restriction. The problem is that those add up. That is the problem. I don't care if you think "well gun are ok as long as they have more restrictions," or "all guns should be banned." You are in the same camp of "just a little more."

How many restrictions are on you to vote? To practice religion? Unreasonable search and seizure? Would you support "just a little more" restriction on them? Probably not.

So you are a problem too. Unless you have a clearly defined line that you wouldn't cross...like background checks and no more...you are not a solution and you are a friend to the anti-gun control crowd because you support the idea of "just a little more" restriction.

Does your opinion alter when it come to firearms owners who DO support any such measures? Or do you think they're some how against their own selves?

 

[spud_meister]

How many restrictions are on you to vote?

Age, criminal record, voter ID in some places.

To practice religion?

In a school or university?

Unreasonable search and seizure?

Sold any drugs recently?

Would you support "just a little more" restriction on them? Probably not.

There are plenty of restrictions on them all.

The point I'll make though is that there's no such thing as a small government politician in a position of power. All rights will keep on being restricted, like with voter ID, you may believe it to be reasonable, but it's still a restrictions, and this is how it happens.

 

[CRUE CAB]

Which is only one kind of electoral fraud. One person casting 2 votes isn't the real issue in the context of the systematic fraud that both parties engage in for the election.

Well wouldnt an ID prove that it is one man one vote?

 

[Dapper Andy]

Do you favor Voter ID? Isn't that "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote?

Of course it is a restriction. That's the point.

Voting isn't a fundamental, inalienable right like the right to own a gun and it isn't intended to be open to everyone at any time.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Which is only one kind of electoral fraud. One person casting 2 votes isn't the real issue in the context of the systematic fraud that both parties engage in for the election.

Voter fraud probably can't be completely eliminated, but it should be minimized to the point that it cannot effect outcomes. Voter ID is but one in a string of needed measures, others include vetting booth providers and demanding calibration sheets, heavily prosecuting gerrymandering schemes, and enforcing polling prohibitions on both bussing and campaigning.

 

[blackjack50]

Do you favor Voter ID? Isn't that "just a little more" restriction on the right to vote?

Not particularly. I don't like government interference. But if you are for "just a little more" for security...why aren't you for it with voter ID?

 

[CRUE CAB]

Voter fraud probably can't be completely eliminated, but it should be minimized to the point that it cannot effect outcomes. Voter ID is but one in a string of needed measures, others include vetting booth providers and demanding calibration sheets, heavily prosecuting gerrymandering schemes, and enforcing polling prohibitions on both bussing and campaigning.

The worst fraud is redistricting. It should be one man one vote in the general elections.
Get rid of the electoral college and use just a straight up popular vote.

 

[LaMidRighter]

The worst fraud is redistricting. It should be one man one vote in the general elections.
Get rid of the electoral college and use just a straight up popular vote.

I don't like popular vote, the reason the EC was instituted was because the states were to have representation. IOW, California, New York, Texas, and other populace states could have one way of doing things, but enough population to always win elections. The EC insures that states have a representative vote, it's still partially based on population, but one cluster of a certain ideology cannot simply decide national election.

 

[mtguy8787]

I don't like popular vote, the reason the EC was instituted was because the states were to have representation. IOW, California, New York, Texas, and other populace states could have one way of doing things, but enough population to always win elections. The EC insures that states have a representative vote, it's still partially based on population, but one cluster of a certain ideology cannot simply decide national election.

Back then, people were more identified with their state than with the newly formed country. They were a Virginian first, and an American second. But that is changed now. Plus, why should a state, which is not a living entity, have representation?

 

[captainawesome]

Of course it is a restriction. That's the point.

Voting isn't a fundamental, inalienable right like the right to own a gun and it isn't intended to be open to everyone at any time.

Of course voting is a right.

No taxation with out representation.

If you chant chose your rep you have no real representation.

The founders were angry the king picked their reps for them and there was no vote.

 

[LaMidRighter]

Back then, people were more identified with their state than with the newly formed country. They were a Virginian first, and an American second. But that is changed now. Plus, why should a state, which is not a living entity, have representation?

Ah, not true. The law of the land is still 50 individual states, the only difference is the government has asserted a false centralized model that many assume to be true, even more reason not to further enable it with popular national vote.

 

[blaxshep]

With today's technology there doesn't need to be a registration to keep voting legitimate all that needs to be done is to assign each person an encrypted key identification.

 

[mtguy8787]

Ah, not true. The law of the land is still 50 individual states, the only difference is the government has asserted a false centralized model that many assume to be true, even more reason not to further enable it with popular national vote.

The president is the president of all states. Therefore, a person in one state should have equal say over who becomes president as someone in another state.

If the votes of people in some states counts more, then some individuals have a greater say than others over something that affects us all equally.

Individuals > states

The answer to centralization is individualization. States are just as much a model for centralization and collectivism as a national government.

 

[blaxshep]

The biggest fraud going is the whole election process. Every vote cast within the two party system is a vote against "the people" and as long as the MSM perpetuates the idea that any vote cast otherwise is "throwing you vote away" the fraud will continue.

 

[Dapper Andy]

Of course voting is a right.

No taxation with out representation.

If you chant chose your rep you have no real representation.

The founders were angry the king picked their reps for them and there was no vote.

You most certainly can be taxed without representation in this country, just look at corporations.

No taxation without representation is just a quote and not actual law.

 

[blaxshep]

You most certainly can be taxed without representation in this country, just look at corporations.

No taxation without representation is just a quote and not actual law.

Who are you kidding Corporations are the only ones congress represents.
They all ought to be made to wear racing uniforms so we all can clearly see who they work for.