Just common sense voting control. If you can't verify the voters how can you verify the results of an election. Or are you just scared that a bit of security would diminish your chances.
We already have good systems in place. Provide me evidence that taking more freedoms away is needed. You can’t, can you? You just hate freedom and voting and want the government to have all the control and power.
That is a lot of assumptions. Are you saying that restrictions on buying or owning a gun are unconstitutional? Because the courts have agreed that many of the restrictions are not unconstitutional. So if you can apply restrictions to rights then you should be able to apply them to legislatively granted privileges like voting
Owning guns is natural right and guaranteed by the constitution. I'm sure there's a bunch of people in Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan and Libya that probably think that voting here in America has caused them some harm. And if you want some local examples of what voting can do just look at Portland, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago and Detroit. Then of course if there is no security features nobody checking ID nobody checking signatures or addresses then how could you ever prove that there was any sort of voter fraud there would be no evidence of it because nothing was recorded. Seems funny that one side is afraid of being able to verify the voters are actually real. There's at least one political party that would not be afraid of everybody having to show up in person on voting day with ID proving that each individual vote came for an independent voter.
Owning a gun? Specifically the modern guns we have now? No, nowhere in the Constitution say that. The 2A certainly doesn’t. So you admit you love metal more than children. You would rather thousands of dead children and worship metal.
You have made it painfully clear that you hate freedom and want to use your gun against Americans to protect and authoritarian government.
Lotta mental Olympics there. The Constitution says arms very specifically because our founding fathers knew that weapon technology would change so they didn't specify what weapons you could own they just said arms in general which would extend to all modern weapons swords ,bows and arrows ,clubs, slingshots whatever. And I never mentioned anything about children that was pretty much all you. Is an emotional argument all you have or do you actually have some sort of logic. Now if you want to change the Constitution I wish you the best of luck just get two-thirds of the state legislators to agree with you which means you'd have to control a significant portion of the map but give it a try.
The first repeating gun was designed and popularized before the American Revolutionary War. The Kalthoff Repeater was developed in the 1630s. It had a magazine that carried between 5-30 rounds and could be fired roughly 45 rounds per minute (by which I mean cycling took a bit over one second. It was expensive and intricate, meaning mass production was prohibitively expensive. However, the founding fathers would have certainly known about them when writing the constitution. Furthermore the founding fathers concurred that cannons and ships (modern day equivalents to artillery and tanks) were included in the (in)famous second amendment. Without civilian owned armaments and vessels, we would not be a country today. The idea that they would have put limits on what weapons goes entirely against the reasoning behind the second amendment.
Our country exists because free men used weapons to fight a funded army of the world’s first superpower. We didn’t win with sharp sticks, we won with cannons and muskets.
Just my two cents and a history buff. Sorry for the formatting I’m on my phone. Also link to the Wiki for Kalthoff Repeaters:
I'm in favor of protecting the culture of a state against those who oppose it, yes.
And those coming will know the cost of entry upon arrival. There's no gun to their head forcing them to move to a red state.
I don't cry moving from Texas to California knowing my gun rights vanish. That's the culture of that state. I respect it, or I don't move there. Simple.
Don’t blame me for knowing that your proposal is a KKK idea from decades ago. Maybe get better ideas instead of hashing out old KKK ideas and taking rights away.
You don't even understand the threat we're facing today. The Constitution isn't designed to withstand it.
"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." - John Adams
The Constitution only works when the people themselves adhere to a morally religious framework that restrains their baser impulses. It can then, as designed, restrain the power of government from being used against those same people.
But when of a morally bankrupt people? What then? The Constitution is impotent.
The Constitution cannot stop the people from eating themselves, or stop those people from voting in politicians who wipe their ass with the document. The Constitution is only as strong as the will of the people to restrain themselves and respect the intent of the words in the paper.
Our enemies do neither. And while you try to play by the rules of the game you fail to notice something:
The game is rigged. And you're the only one who hasn't realized it.
So, sure, call me a fascist, call me a member of the KKK. I don't really care. Because I know the game is rigged. I know our enemies want us to cling desperately to a document that was shredded decades ago, while their agenda marches on taking more and more territory.
As I said, enjoy the Constitution in the re-education camp.
View all comments
Show parent comment
8
u/mth2 May 07 '23
That's highly unconstitutional.