The constitution says explicitly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It, however, says nothing about the right to vote.
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to. Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications.
https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote
It is apples and oranges, I agree. The constitution limits the government's ability to deny the right to bear arms, yet says nothing about voting rights.
0
Interesting point of debate.
The constitution says explicitly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It, however, says nothing about the right to vote.
The Constitution contains many phrases, clauses, and amendments detailing ways people cannot be denied the right to vote. You cannot deny the right to vote because of race or gender. Citizens of Washington DC can vote for President; 18-year-olds can vote; you can vote even if you fail to pay a poll tax. The Constitution also requires that anyone who can vote for the "most numerous branch" of their state legislature can vote for House members and Senate members.
Note that in all of this, though, the Constitution never explicitly ensures the right to vote, as it does the right to speech, for example. It does require that Representatives be chosen and Senators be elected by "the People," and who comprises "the People" has been expanded by the aforementioned amendments several times. Aside from these requirements, though, the qualifications for voters are left to the states. And as long as the qualifications do not conflict with anything in the Constitution, that right can be withheld. For example, in Texas, persons declared mentally incompetent and felons currently in prison or on probation are denied the right to vote. It is interesting to note that though the 26th Amendment requires that 18-year-olds must be able to vote, states can allow persons younger than 18 to vote, if they chose to. Thanks to Roy Neale for the idea and to Brian Shaprio for some clarifications.
https://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#vote
It is apples and oranges, I agree. The constitution limits the government's ability to deny the right to bear arms, yet says nothing about voting rights.
Which part of my post do you have a problem with..?
I am in full agreement with our Constitution in fact I cited a case that upholds the words in the Constitution.
However, with all of that being said, I do believe that the qualifications to obtain a gun needs to be restructured at the only level that it can be, the state level.
0
Which part of my post do you have a problem with..?
I am in full agreement with our Constitution in fact I cited a case that upholds the words in the Constitution.
However, with all of that being said, I do believe that the qualifications to obtain a gun needs to be restructured at the only level that it can be, the state level.
The constitution specifically says that you can't infringe on the right to bear arms. Therefore it is not constitutional for the states to infringe on the right to bear arms.
0
The constitution specifically says that you can't infringe on the right to bear arms. Therefore it is not constitutional for the states to infringe on the right to bear arms.
So what do you think of the states having a say in that aspect of being able to be more restrictive in terms of gun laws.
Most RP people love giving more autonomy to the state governments and I think it should be up to the states in this area and whether or not they want to be more restrictive or allowing of guns.
I feel that these large cities should have stricter gun laws but rural areas shouldn't. I'm fine with that because chances are if someone discharges a weapon in NYC, Chicago, or LA there is more of a chance for collateral damage etc..
0
So what do you think of the states having a say in that aspect of being able to be more restrictive in terms of gun laws.
Most RP people love giving more autonomy to the state governments and I think it should be up to the states in this area and whether or not they want to be more restrictive or allowing of guns.
I feel that these large cities should have stricter gun laws but rural areas shouldn't. I'm fine with that because chances are if someone discharges a weapon in NYC, Chicago, or LA there is more of a chance for collateral damage etc..
When the constitution designates something a negative right it means that nobody can touch it. Are you for states putting restrictions on literature that is questioning of Government authority? Same deal. We have an absolute right to own firearms that is protected by the second amendment. Any law passed by a state it is Inherently unconstitutional.
But, if Obama gets to stack the Supreme Court with people that hate the constitution then who knows.
I bet Roberts would ban guns.
0
When the constitution designates something a negative right it means that nobody can touch it. Are you for states putting restrictions on literature that is questioning of Government authority? Same deal. We have an absolute right to own firearms that is protected by the second amendment. Any law passed by a state it is Inherently unconstitutional.
But, if Obama gets to stack the Supreme Court with people that hate the constitution then who knows.
We live in a republic where twWe live in a republico wolves and a sheep do not vote on what is for dinner.
We live in a republic with a representative democracy as our form of govt. The constitution says nothing about gun restrictions at all. So are we just to throw all common sense out the window in our society today because of that. Rick, why would you be for any kind of gun restriction or legislation whatsoever? Would not any citizen have the right to bear & own any kind of "arms"? Why wouldn't a mentally disturbed person also have the right to protect himself from the govt in the case of tyranny?
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
We live in a republic where twWe live in a republico wolves and a sheep do not vote on what is for dinner.
We live in a republic with a representative democracy as our form of govt. The constitution says nothing about gun restrictions at all. So are we just to throw all common sense out the window in our society today because of that. Rick, why would you be for any kind of gun restriction or legislation whatsoever? Would not any citizen have the right to bear & own any kind of "arms"? Why wouldn't a mentally disturbed person also have the right to protect himself from the govt in the case of tyranny?
Shall not be infringed is a pretty stark indication. I am not for any restrictions as of now because the other side of the debate is for an outright ban. There is no negotiating with that.
0
Shall not be infringed is a pretty stark indication. I am not for any restrictions as of now because the other side of the debate is for an outright ban. There is no negotiating with that.
The constitution says explicitly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Even Justice Scalia does not agree with this far right wing extremist position:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. …
DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
The problem with the far right gun extremists is the hypocrisy within their own positions. Ask any of they agree that a neighbor with a prior violent felony be allowed to purchase a gun; ask any of they think a daughter's former violent boyfriend who is subject to a restraining order, should be able to own and carry a firearm; ask any if people should be allowed to bring firearms into schools or if a mentally ill person should be allowed to own.
But raise the issue of an examination of policies to try and prevent future tragedies and they fall back on the line...."the constitution says explicitly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" blah blah blah.
That's the problem, by in-large, with extremist thinking. It cannot get out of the way of its own hypocritical train of thought.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
The constitution says explicitly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Even Justice Scalia does not agree with this far right wing extremist position:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. …
DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008).
The problem with the far right gun extremists is the hypocrisy within their own positions. Ask any of they agree that a neighbor with a prior violent felony be allowed to purchase a gun; ask any of they think a daughter's former violent boyfriend who is subject to a restraining order, should be able to own and carry a firearm; ask any if people should be allowed to bring firearms into schools or if a mentally ill person should be allowed to own.
But raise the issue of an examination of policies to try and prevent future tragedies and they fall back on the line...."the constitution says explicitly that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" blah blah blah.
That's the problem, by in-large, with extremist thinking. It cannot get out of the way of its own hypocritical train of thought.
See if you can fit the word extremist in there one more time.
I am not for any restrictions post 36.
See, that's the funny thing. If the law was such that convicted felons and the mentally ill could walk around your children's school, freely carrying, your false brevado would be much more poignant.
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
See if you can fit the word extremist in there one more time.
I am not for any restrictions post 36.
See, that's the funny thing. If the law was such that convicted felons and the mentally ill could walk around your children's school, freely carrying, your false brevado would be much more poignant.
Shall not be infringed is a pretty stark indication. I am not for any restrictions as of now because the other side of the debate is for an outright ban. There is no negotiating with that.
I was trying to say that i am not for any further restrictions.
I do not think that you can compromise with people that want an outright ban.
I feel that too much ground has been given already.
Obviously your rights can be taken away through due process of law, but I do not think that outside of due process there should be any restrictions on who can have a firearm.
0
Shall not be infringed is a pretty stark indication. I am not for any restrictions as of now because the other side of the debate is for an outright ban. There is no negotiating with that.
I was trying to say that i am not for any further restrictions.
I do not think that you can compromise with people that want an outright ban.
I feel that too much ground has been given already.
Obviously your rights can be taken away through due process of law, but I do not think that outside of due process there should be any restrictions on who can have a firearm.
Shall not be infringed is a pretty stark indication. I am not for any restrictions as of now because the other side of the debate is for an outright ban. There is no negotiating with that.
I was trying to say that i am not for any further restrictions.
I do not think that you can compromise with people that want an outright ban.
I feel that too much ground has been given already.
Obviously your rights can be taken away through due process of law, but I do not think that outside of due process there should be any restrictions on who can have a firearm.
But that goes to my point. You cannot simultaneously support restrictions whilst arguing that the 2nd Amendment forbids any restrictions.
As is always the case, it is based on what is reasonable (or legally, if it can withstand strict or intermediate scrutiny).
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
Shall not be infringed is a pretty stark indication. I am not for any restrictions as of now because the other side of the debate is for an outright ban. There is no negotiating with that.
I was trying to say that i am not for any further restrictions.
I do not think that you can compromise with people that want an outright ban.
I feel that too much ground has been given already.
Obviously your rights can be taken away through due process of law, but I do not think that outside of due process there should be any restrictions on who can have a firearm.
But that goes to my point. You cannot simultaneously support restrictions whilst arguing that the 2nd Amendment forbids any restrictions.
As is always the case, it is based on what is reasonable (or legally, if it can withstand strict or intermediate scrutiny).
I do not "support" restrictions. I can tolerate them. They have not come to the point that I feel that they are necessarily corrosive by nature, and actually agree with a few IE taking away the right to own firearms after due process of law. Just as I support stripping voting rights, federal employment etc. to felons.
I believe that a ban on semi-automatic firearms would be a line in the sand.
0
I do not "support" restrictions. I can tolerate them. They have not come to the point that I feel that they are necessarily corrosive by nature, and actually agree with a few IE taking away the right to own firearms after due process of law. Just as I support stripping voting rights, federal employment etc. to felons.
I believe that a ban on semi-automatic firearms would be a line in the sand.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.