testtest

Grabbing at straws?

Recusant

Master Class

the obsrver

Master Class
I guess I figure if they want background checks, id's and everything else on the constitutional right to own firearms, then why not on the constitutional right to vote?
They should be treating these constitutional rights all the same. That is how they were written and intended to be enforced. I do not understand how the left does not understand that.
 
The anti-gun the mayor of San Jose wants to add ten more gun restrictions . California's third-largest city will take up a proposal to, among other things, require gun stores to audio and video record gun sales, require proof of liability insurance for all gun owners and implement a tax to cover costs associated with gun violence.

San Jose mayor rolls out new gun control proposal days after railyard mass shooting.
Another knee jerk reaction that will do nothing at all to prevent further shootings.
And a “Tax” on law abiding citizens to cover the cost associated with gun violence??? Why don’t they just go after the assets of the individual who does the shooting?
 

the obsrver

Master Class
Another knee jerk reaction that will do nothing at all to prevent further shootings.
And a “Tax” on law abiding citizens to cover the cost associated with gun violence??? Why don’t they just go after the assets of the individual who does the shooting?
Exactly. Why do law abiding people have to pay for criminals actions? What is next everyone has to pay a tax to cover for drunk drivers? Everyone has to pay a tax to cover for excessive speeders?
Like I said above I can not understand their thinking at all. I am starting to think the reason for that is because they are retarded.
 

ScottJ

Professional
Founding Member
Exactly. Why do law abiding people have to pay for criminals actions? What is next everyone has to pay a tax to cover for drunk drivers? Everyone has to pay a tax to cover for excessive speeders?
Like I said above I can not understand their thinking at all. I am starting to think the reason for that is because they are retarded.
"...What is next everyone has to pay a tax to cover for drunk drivers? Everyone has to pay a tax to cover for excessive speeders?"

I think those are factored-in to the insurance rates we pay, and determined by where one lives.
 

the obsrver

Master Class
"...What is next everyone has to pay a tax to cover for drunk drivers? Everyone has to pay a tax to cover for excessive speeders?"

I think those are factored-in to the insurance rates we pay, and determined by where one lives.
Ok then, every politician should be held accountable and pay the price for every other one. So this mayor is accountable for every other mayor. If a mayor somewhere gets a failure to come to a complete stop ticket, they all have to pay a failure to stop ticket. Then let's just keep going with this concept this mayor has. Since the 13% are responsible for most of the gun violence in the US, that group should have to pay far more than the others, just like a drunk driver has to pay a higher insurance premium when they are able to drive again. Or like a person with 10 traffic violations has to pay more. Or how a person who buys a house in an area prone to flooding has to pay more.
OR
As I said since it is a constitutional right, just like voting we treat them the same, since they were written and intended to be treated the same. ( Actually the 2nd amendment comes before the right to vote for a reason) That is the most logical thing and it shuts up both side about gun control and voter id's. It becomes a whole different ballgame when you hold THE ENTIRE constitution to the standard it was intended, because just like a gun fight, you have to decide is it worth it. You know that if you want to make it harder to exercise one right, you also have to do the same to another. No groups of people. No dividing people. Plain and simple, you want to buy a gun? Background check and id ( which I do not disagree with). You want to vote? Background check and id. (which I also do not disagree with).
NO MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Now that is a march I could get behind.
 
Last edited:

ScottJ

Professional
Founding Member
Ok then, every politician should be held accountable and pay the price for every other one. So this mayor is accountable for every other mayor. If a mayor somewhere gets a failure to come to a complete stop ticket, they all have to pay a failure to stop ticket. Then let's just keep going with this concept this mayor has. Since the 13% are responsible for most of the gun violence in the US, that group should have to pay far more than the others, just like a drunk driver has to pay a higher insurance premium when they are able to drive again. Or like a person with 10 traffic violations has to pay more. Or how a person who buys a house in an area prone to flooding has to pay more.
OR
As I said since it is a constitutional right, just like voting we treat them the same, since they were written and intended to be treated the same. ( Actually the 2nd amendment comes before the right to vote for a reason) That is the most logical thing and it shuts up both side about gun control and voter id's. It becomes a whole different ballgame when you hold THE ENTIRE constitution to the standard it was intended, because just like a gun fight, you have to decide is it worth it. You know that if you want to make it harder to exercise one right, you also have to do the same to another. No groups of people. No dividing people. Plain and simple, you want to buy a gun? Background check and id ( which I do not disagree with). You want to vote? Background check and id. (which I also do not disagree with).
NO MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Now that is a march I could get behind.
"...Ok then, every politician should be held accountable and pay the price for every other one. So this mayor is accountable for every other mayor. If a mayor somewhere gets a failure to come to a complete stop ticket, they all have to pay a failure to stop ticket."

What?
 

Recusant

Master Class
As I said since it is a constitutional right, just like voting we treat them the same, since they were written and intended to be treated the same. ( Actually the 2nd amendment comes before the right to vote for a reason) That is the most logical thing and it shuts up both side about gun control and voter id's. It becomes a whole different ballgame when you hold THE ENTIRE constitution to the standard it was intended, because just like a gun fight, you have to decide is it worth it. You know that if you want to make it harder to exercise one right, you also have to do the same to another. No groups of people. No dividing people. Plain and simple, you want to buy a gun? Background check and id ( which I do not disagree with). You want to vote? Background check and id. (which I also do not disagree with).
NO MORE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. Now that is a march I could get behind.
Actually, unlike other rights listed in the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, or the right to a speedy and public trial in the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution may not explicitly give U.S. citizens the “right” to vote. Many legal experts believe the right is implicit, embedded in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: When the right to vote at any election … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.” Since the addition of the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution has been amended four more times to prohibit states from denying the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay poll tax (24th Amendment), and age, 18 years and older (26th Amendment). No constitutional provision asserts that there is a right to vote; only that states cannot deny the right to vote based on the above-mentioned criteria. So following this logic if 2nd Amendment rights are explicitly expressed (and they are) then only additional amendments could to change the original intent. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are accountable for managing federal elections. Most states explicitly assert the right to vote for each of its citizens in its state constitution. Although, this is not a right that states are required to grant: Section 2 of the 14th Amendment “penalizes states that withhold the ballot but does not require them to grant it.” Thus, if a state grants the right to vote for citizens of its state, then the state will be punished if they prevent a state citizen from voting using specific criteria. The government can effectively restrict voting access for any reason other than the few enumerated prohibitions, and the right still has not been violated in any legal sense.” Because there are different views regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and there are not additional amendments protecting gun ownership the gov't has been able to pass laws limiting gun ownership because in many minds such laws are not explicitly denied.

* I'm not a lawyer, but I did use this article (https://www.collegesoflaw.edu/blog/...vote-a-constitutional-guarantee-or-privilege/) to express my view!
 

the obsrver

Master Class
"...Ok then, every politician should be held accountable and pay the price for every other one. So this mayor is accountable for every other mayor. If a mayor somewhere gets a failure to come to a complete stop ticket, they all have to pay a failure to stop ticket."

What?
If every gun owner is responsible for every other gun owners actions. You are saying that group of people are all responsible for what one of them does. So it should be with all groups of people then.
 

the obsrver

Master Class
Actually, unlike other rights listed in the Constitution, such as the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the Second Amendment, or the right to a speedy and public trial in the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution may not explicitly give U.S. citizens the “right” to vote. Many legal experts believe the right is implicit, embedded in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: When the right to vote at any election … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such state, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such state.” Since the addition of the 14th Amendment, the U.S. Constitution has been amended four more times to prohibit states from denying the right to vote based on race, color, or previous condition of servitude (15th Amendment), sex (19th Amendment), failure to pay poll tax (24th Amendment), and age, 18 years and older (26th Amendment). No constitutional provision asserts that there is a right to vote; only that states cannot deny the right to vote based on the above-mentioned criteria. So following this logic if 2nd Amendment rights are explicitly expressed (and they are) then only additional amendments could to change the original intent. Under the U.S. Constitution, states are accountable for managing federal elections. Most states explicitly assert the right to vote for each of its citizens in its state constitution. Although, this is not a right that states are required to grant: Section 2 of the 14th Amendment “penalizes states that withhold the ballot but does not require them to grant it.” Thus, if a state grants the right to vote for citizens of its state, then the state will be punished if they prevent a state citizen from voting using specific criteria. The government can effectively restrict voting access for any reason other than the few enumerated prohibitions, and the right still has not been violated in any legal sense.” Because there are different views regarding the meaning of the 2nd Amendment and there are not additional amendments protecting gun ownership the gov't has been able to pass laws limiting gun ownership because in many minds such laws are not explicitly denied.

* I'm not a lawyer, but I did use this article (https://www.collegesoflaw.edu/blog/...vote-a-constitutional-guarantee-or-privilege/) to express my view!
So in laymens terms, the right to bear arms is more important than the right to vote. (which is why the right to bear arms was the second) It also says shall not be infringed upon in the 2nd amendment, meaning it can not be changed and that changing voting rights are more susceptible and easier to alter and change then the 2nd amendment.
Meaning that according to the law, passing background checks and id requirements to vote should be easy and a no brainer given the precedence has already been set by doing so to a right that is more set in stone with no wiggle room due to it stating shall not be infringed.
Again, if the left could see that what is fair for the right to buy a fire arm is fair to be able to vote, maybe they would shut the hell up about it???
Now if a senator in a state had the balls to bring this up and say that in their state since you have to have a background check and present an id to buy a fire arm, they are going to pass a law requiring the same to vote, it can not be challenged legally by the federal government, because as you said the state is responsible for the election process. They are not denying the right to vote (just as they say about requiring such measures to purchase a fire arm). Such a senator would garner massive coverage, be totally right in these actions and gain the respect and votes of a very very very large population.
 
Last edited:

ScottJ

Professional
Founding Member
If every gun owner is responsible for every other gun owners actions. You are saying that group of people are all responsible for what one of them does. So it should be with all groups of people then.
My [tongue-in-cheek] response concerning auto insurance was to your statement of "what's next, everyone has to pay a tax to cover for drunk drivers..".

Yes. Our insurance premiums (call it a tax if you want) do pretty much include our driving actions (wrecks, dui, etc, etc), and the actions of others, and is varied if one happens to live in a high risk area, or not. But, I'm sure you're well aware of all of that, so I'll end here. :)
 

Pitdogg2

Custom
I guess I figure if they want background checks, id's and everything else on the constitutional right to own firearms, then why not on the constitutional right to vote?
They should be treating these constitutional rights all the same. That is how they were written and intended to be enforced. I do not understand how the left does not understand that.
Our how about the first amendment? Do you need all that stuff to speak your mind?
 

uspatriot1960

Master Class
Another knee jerk reaction that will do nothing at all to prevent further shootings.
And a “Tax” on law abiding citizens to cover the cost associated with gun violence??? Why don’t they just go after the assets of the individual who does the shooting?
No, no, no....

I get your point in relation to criminals shooting innocent people. But something like this will wind up extending to and opening up lawsuits against law abiding citizens using a firearm to protect themselves...
 

jumpinjoe

Professional
" ........................ " " ........................ " " ................................. "
I do not understand how the left does not understand that.
obsrvr, the 'left' fully understands that, they simply don't give a damn. If something interferes or in any way restricts their intent, they simply ignore it, or run over it.
 

jumpinjoe

Professional
Sort of. You have to have a permit or license to broadcast. You have to have station identification. You even have to have some of that to run a ham radio.
That's not quite correct. You are required some forms of permitting and/or licensing to broadcast over public and/or private airways, but you can stand on any street corner (stump) and shout to the heavens with no requirements other than local societal laws/ordinances. But that's what "Freedom of speech" is basically all about ..... being able to speak your mind without redress from/by the gov't. You are not afforded that same protection from the public at large however.
 
Top