Are you OK with you right to bear arms being subjected to that test?
I actually have no problem with that, what I have a problem with is the idea of registration after the fact. It's the law of the land that felons and those involuntarily committed to mental health institutions may not own weapons and the only way to enforce that is an ID requirement. If the law changed to allow those individuals to possess then that debate can be renewed.
So? Freedom was considered a privilege until 1865. The founders got **** wrong. :shrug: The appeal to authority/tradition argument you are making is still irrelevant to our discussion. Repeating it yet again hasn't changed that.
No, the founders own writings admitted they were hypocritical about what rights applied to whom. They knew slavery was wrong and admitted as much, however they made it clear that voting wasn't a right. Agree or disagree that is the history.
It is certainly mythical because it is being overblown by people who wish to do nothing more than legally suppress the votes of those who are more inclined to vote against their party.
Here's the difference, only criminals engage in fraud, the ID requirement is to make sure fewer of them do so. This does not pertain to the right to keep and bear, in which criminals and citizens in good standing engage, yet I have to prove who I am to engage in my second amendment rights, whereas people are arguing that a priveledge converted to a right does not hold the same scrutiny.
I mean, you can't really be naive enough to believe these tards who are calling for voter ID's are actually interested in stoppping that which they gleefully take part in when it benefits them.
Actually, stopping fraud is stopping fraud, doesn't matter which side is engaging/not engaging.
And how did that work out for them?
It didn't work THAT time. If an election comes down to less than 1k votes it could make a difference.
SO are you saying you cannot use a logically valid and non-hypocritical argument justify your choice to designate the rights you wish to infringe as "created" ones, while designating those that you do not want infringed as "fundamental"?
I'm saying it's an apples to elephants comparison. My right to keep and bear has existed throughout our history, the right to vote not so much. Yet the newer right is expected to carry less scrutiny? You cannot see my point here? Less people suffer misuse of a weapon than a fraudulent election, not trying to be callous but that is a fact.
Because nothing you have written above does that.
Sure it does if you follow the logic.
Question: What difference is there between a stupid uninformed voter who just votes party line and a stupid informed voter who just votes party line?
Answer: Sweet **** all.
I can't stand either, but is not an uninformed vote just as dangerous as an idiot with a gun? If I as a citizen held a gun to your head and demanded 45% of your income is it not just as bad to elect someone to effect policy to do the same?
The difference in my opinion is that I really do want to scrap our current system because I think it's ****ed.
I disagree, the "two party system" is, not the fundamentals behind the republic.
Yep. That's the democracy part of our Representative Democracy.
Democracy is direct vote on law, the only part we held over was direct vote of those who make it, and with prior restrictions upon even their authority.......at least when they play by the rules and don't make **** up as they go along.
Yep. That's the representative part of our Representative Democracy.
Same response as prior.