ADVERTISEMENT

Trump's secret police

Nothing new. If we had voter ID laws this wouldn't be a thing so if people want to complain they can complain to their tear soaked pillow.
 
They are supposed to monitor the mail to ensure no fraudulent mail in votes get through. If they find one that looks like it was sprinkled with Cheeto dust they were instructed to let it through.
 
Don't forget the insane unmarked cops throwing Americans into vans. For some reason the nra is ok with this, despite that being the literal only reason they exist.
 
Poll watchers are a common practice. My mom worked as one in Chicago. Of course, the watchers there were overwhelmingly Democrat.

Oh, wait. It’s a big problem because Trump is doing it and we want to act like it’s some crazy and dangerous thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: UCFBS
"keep and bear Arms".
Oh, so now you’re taking a narrow and static view of the constitution?

I suppose that we can return all the federally-usurped power back to the states then because “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
 
Oh, so now you’re taking a narrow and static view of the constitution?

I suppose that we can return all the federally-usurped power back to the states then because “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I'm just comparing the words that you chose to the words that the founders chose, no more no less. Buy firearms is not in there.
 
I'm just comparing the words that you chose to the words that the founders chose, no more no less. Buy firearms is not in there.
keep and bear arms implies acquisition. Regardless, you're taking a very strict originalistic viewpoint that is absolutely contrary to anything that you've posted previously. Happy trolling.
 
So you think forcing background checks and showing IDs to buy firearms is wrong as well?
There is no constitutional right to be able to purchase guns. The right to keep and bear arms relates to possession. Supreme Court has upheld that the Second amendment is also not absolute. There is also not an unlimited constitutional right to vote. There are various forms of discrimination that cannot be used to impede a person from voting. States are free to implement voting procedures that don’t unfairly discriminate based on the categories outlined in the amendments (age, race, color, or sex). It’s up to courts to decide if measures implemented are discriminatory but as already stated, poll monitors have existed for some time. I would think it is not discriminatory as long as there is relatively equal representation amongst those monitors.
 
keep and bear arms implies acquisition. Regardless, you're taking a very strict originalistic viewpoint that is absolutely contrary to anything that you've posted previously. Happy trolling.

Call it trolling since you want to deflect. No "keep and bear arms" does not imply acquisition through purchase, as people gave away and made guns back then. The original point is that voting is a constitutional right, all the other things you mentioned are not.
 
Call it trolling since you want to deflect. No "keep and bear arms" does not imply acquisition through purchase, as people gave away and made guns back then. The original point is that voting is a constitutional right, all the other things you mentioned are not.
Keep and bear arms traces back to the 1300's when subjects were expected to acquire and keep arms to bring to bear in defense of King and country. This practice carried into the Revolution and beyond. There is no possible way that the founders of this country did not acknowledge a pre-existing right to acquire arms, including purchasing, nor did they ever intend to prohibit sales of arms. Therefore, if you want to be obtuse to make an idiotic modern policy position, then the sale and purchase of arms is acknowledged as a power of the "people" by the 10th Amendment.

As to the point that the SCOTUS acknowledges a that the sale of firearms can be regulated, that is true. But they have also regulated and limited speech in Schenck and then Brandenburg and that doesn't make the First Amendment any less valid.

But to your point, if you're going to say that requiring ID cancels the right to vote then you also must say that limiting the ability to purchase a firearm cancels 2A.
 
Poll watchers are a common practice. My mom worked as one in Chicago. Of course, the watchers there were overwhelmingly Democrat.

Oh, wait. It’s a big problem because Trump is doing it and we want to act like it’s some crazy and dangerous thing.
^ This

In the end, basic Voter ID works, as long as it's basic. In other words ...
  • Any Federal Agency issued Photo ID is valid to vote in any Federal Elections, plus any State ID that is recognized the Federal as valid
  • Any State Agency issued Photo ID is valid to vote in any State Elections, plus any Federal ID names the State of Residency and is approved by the State as well
Most states have adopted driver's licenses that are Federal approved now, so that takes care of it for most people. But any veterans or other Photo IDs should be valid as well.

The left is stupid and the right tries to make Voter ID too restrictive. The idea behind Voter ID is basic fraud prevention, not the removal of rights. The state should have to prove within 72 hours that someone has registered or voted fraudulently, otherwise the registration or vote stands.

I also don't mind 'purging' Voter roles as long as it's no less than 8 years between voting and purging, with 3 postal mailed notifications of 18, 12 and 6 months in advance. Only 2-4 years is way too short.

As far as e-Mail, only with Digital Signatures. e-Mail is so freak'n easy to falsify, it should never be used. Only payloads that are Digitally Signed should be accepted, which requires a whole new approach.
 
Keep and bear arms traces back to the 1300's when subjects were expected to acquire and keep arms to bring to bear in defense of King and country. This practice carried into the Revolution and beyond. There is no possible way that the founders of this country did not acknowledge a pre-existing right to acquire arms, including purchasing, nor did they ever intend to prohibit sales of arms. Therefore, if you want to be obtuse to make an idiotic modern policy position, then the sale and purchase of arms is acknowledged as a power of the "people" by the 10th Amendment.

As to the point that the SCOTUS acknowledges a that the sale of firearms can be regulated, that is true. But they have also regulated and limited speech in Schenck and then Brandenburg and that doesn't make the First Amendment any less valid.

But to your point, if you're going to say that requiring ID cancels the right to vote then you also must say that limiting the ability to purchase a firearm cancels 2A.
Private party transactions don’t require an ID. Thus there is no ultimate requirement for an ID to purchase a firearm. There is no alternative way to vote. So it is really and apples and oranges comparison. But as I said there is no “right to vote”. Just a prohibition on voter discrimination for age, sex, and race. A state can make whatever voter requirements that they want as long as they aren't deemed discriminatory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firm_bizzle
But as I said there is no “right to vote”. Just a prohibition on voter discrimination for age, sex, and race. A state can make whatever voter requirements that they want as long as they aren't deemed discriminatory.
You're kinda close, but not quite.

The SCOTUS has ruled that intelligence and other tests cannot be used, so it's more than just age, sex and race. It's if you are of voting age and have not lost your right to vote via incarceration or other terms of the state, you have a right to vote. So it really is a right to vote.

Now that said ...

The state itself is allowed to define how it's federal representatives are elected, as long as it's non-discriminatory and does not violate the US Constitution and its Amendments. Americans constantly forget we are an union of states, and that's why every state gets weighted representation in various ways as defined by the US Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: firm_bizzle
Right now I'm more worried about what's going on in Oregon, and how federal agents are being used.

It's funny how the left doesn't mind the authoritative state and -- ironically -- is standing behind "State's Rights," but that doesn't excuse what Trump is doing with federal law enforcement either.
 
Right now I'm more worried about what's going on in Oregon, and how federal agents are being used.

It's funny how the left doesn't mind the authoritative state and -- ironically -- is standing behind "State's Rights," but that doesn't excuse what Trump is doing with federal law enforcement either.

I love it! Trump is showing his absolute power. Will get even stronger November 4th.
 
You're kinda close, but not quite.

The SCOTUS has ruled that intelligence and other tests cannot be used, so it's more than just age, sex and race. It's if you are of voting age and have not lost your right to vote via incarceration or other terms of the state, you have a right to vote. So it really is a right to vote.

Now that said ...

The state itself is allowed to define how it's federal representatives are elected, as long as it's non-discriminatory and does not violate the US Constitution and its Amendments. Americans constantly forget we are an union of states, and that's why every state gets weighted representation in various ways as defined by the US Constitution.
The three constitutional amendments regarding voting deal with those specific types of discrimination that I mentioned. The Voting Rights Act outlined that literacy tests could not be used, but such tests technically do not violate the constitutional amendments.
 
Private party transactions don’t require an ID. Thus there is no ultimate requirement for an ID to purchase a firearm. There is no alternative way to vote. So it is really and apples and oranges comparison. But as I said there is no “right to vote”. Just a prohibition on voter discrimination for age, sex, and race. A state can make whatever voter requirements that they want as long as they aren't deemed discriminatory.
For much of America, this is a false statement. At least a third of all states have passed background check requirements on private sales and many others require both the buyer and seller to have valid ID in their state. The reason that they do this is because both parties in private sales have to reside in the same state or else the seller needs a FFL. You cannot prove residency without seeing a valid ID, so they require the ID to be presented.

Using Florida as an example, in order to be legal, private sales must meet 3 conditions: the buyer and seller must both possess a valid ID issued by the state of Florida, the buyer must meet the age requirements, and the buyer must not be a prohibited person. https://www.tampacarry.com/florida-rules-on-private-firearm-sales

Similar to voter regulations, while private firearm sales are more wide-open in federal law as long as both parties reside in the same state and the transaction is within this state, the states are free to regulate the sales and almost all of the do so. The Constitution is at play here with federal government's inability to regulate intrastate commerce even though they can regulate interstate commerce.
 
Right now I'm more worried about what's going on in Oregon, and how federal agents are being used.

It's funny how the left doesn't mind the authoritative state and -- ironically -- is standing behind "State's Rights," but that doesn't excuse what Trump is doing with federal law enforcement either.
If Antifa is a terrorist organization and violating federal law, then federal law enforcement is well within their rights in apprehending suspects. Unlike some other western countries that people like to use as examples the US should follow, US persons can still sue the US Government to address wrongs perpetrated upon them.
 
For much of America, this is a false statement. At least a third of all states have passed background check requirements on private sales and many others require both the buyer and seller to have valid ID in their state. The reason that they do this is because both parties in private sales have to reside in the same state or else the seller needs a FFL. You cannot prove residency without seeing a valid ID, so they require the ID to be presented.

Using Florida as an example, in order to be legal, private sales must meet 3 conditions: the buyer and seller must both possess a valid ID issued by the state of Florida, the buyer must meet the age requirements, and the buyer must not be a prohibited person. https://www.tampacarry.com/florida-rules-on-private-firearm-sales

Similar to voter regulations, while private firearm sales are more wide-open in federal law as long as both parties reside in the same state and the transaction is within this state, the states are free to regulate the sales and almost all of the do so. The Constitution is at play here with federal government's inability to regulate intrastate commerce even though they can regulate interstate commerce.
While technically you may be right, most states have vague laws that prohibit a seller to “knowingly transfer” to a prohibited person. You are supposed to ask for an ID in Florida, but the enforcement of this is at the discretion of the private citizens involved in the transaction.
 
While technically you may be right, most states have vague laws that prohibit a seller to “knowingly transfer” to a prohibited person. You are supposed to ask for an ID in Florida, but the enforcement of this is at the discretion of the private citizens involved in the transaction.
Your statement was that there weren't laws, not that the laws could/couldn't be enforced. If the bar to make people feel better is actively enforceable laws, then we're going to have to either remove a bunch of legislation or fund the police/regulatory agencies to a much higher level than we do today. Anecdotally, I have personally witnessed Orange County SO arrest an individual for a felony at a gunshow for attempting a private sale without verifying the conditions for a legal sale.
 
Your statement was that there weren't laws, not that the laws could/couldn't be enforced. If the bar to make people feel better is actively enforceable laws, then we're going to have to either remove a bunch of legislation or fund the police/regulatory agencies to a much higher level than we do today. Anecdotally, I have personally witnessed Orange County SO arrest an individual for a felony at a gunshow for attempting a private sale without verifying the conditions for a legal sale.
My statement was it didn’t require an ID. As in could be accomplished without presenting one.
 
My statement was it didn’t require an ID. As in could be accomplished without presenting one.
You're being intentionally obtuse. All kinds of illegal activity can be accomplished and is without punishment every single day. That doesn't make any of it legal. There is no law that is going to keep someone from selling a gun to another person if they don't care about the legality of it.
 
Lmao at you people trying to debate with someone so goddamn stupid they think "Trump doesn't lie"

This person is a literal moron
 
You're being intentionally obtuse. All kinds of illegal activity can be accomplished and is without punishment every single day. That doesn't make any of it legal. There is no law that is going to keep someone from selling a gun to another person if they don't care about the legality of it.

Of course he is
 
You're being intentionally obtuse. All kinds of illegal activity can be accomplished and is without punishment every single day. That doesn't make any of it legal. There is no law that is going to keep someone from selling a gun to another person if they don't care about the legality of it.
What is illegal? Show me a law that says you are required to get someone’s identification for a private gun sale in Florida? You aren’t even required to have a record of the sale in Florida. It makes sense for the seller to do due diligence to cover themselves if the buyer uses it to commit a crime or something, but it isn’t required and failure to check ID isn’t something that would be enforceable for a private party sale anyway. You can also gift firearms without paperwork in Florida. The entire point was right to possess a firearm isn’t a comparable situation to the right to vote.
 
What is illegal? Show me a law that says you are required to get someone’s identification for a private gun sale in Florida? You aren’t even required to have a record of the sale in Florida. It makes sense for the seller to do due diligence to cover themselves if the buyer uses it to commit a crime or something, but it isn’t required and failure to check ID isn’t something that would be enforceable for a private party sale anyway. You can also gift firearms without paperwork in Florida. The entire point was right to possess a firearm isn’t a comparable situation to the right to vote.
I linked an article that you obviously didn’t read that stated the firearm requirement. I can link a number of articles that you probably won’t read. I can point to the statute, but that is a pain in the ass to read so you won’t.

Your last sentence is ridiculous. The right to possess a firearm was so important that it was codified just after the freedom of speech. The right to vote is convoluted and is different depending on the office; you don’t even have a Constitutional right to vote for President. So, sure they are different, insofar as the right to keep and bear arms, along with the assumption that you can acquire them, was the more important protected right.

Remember, they built a Republic, not a Democracy, for all that you neoleftists want to turn us into a mob rule country.
 
What is illegal? Show me a law that says you are required to get someone’s identification for a private gun sale in Florida? You aren’t even required to have a record of the sale in Florida. It makes sense for the seller to do due diligence to cover themselves if the buyer uses it to commit a crime or something, but it isn’t required and failure to check ID isn’t something that would be enforceable for a private party sale anyway. You can also gift firearms without paperwork in Florida. The entire point was right to possess a firearm isn’t a comparable situation to the right to vote.

Your last point is correct - the right to own a firearm is far more entrenched in the Constitution as a right than voting is.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hemightbejeremy
Your last point is correct - the right to own a firearm is far more entrenched in the Constitution as a right than voting is.
Yeah, but the constitution doesn't say anything about LOADING a firearm. Gotcha there, you inbred moron.
 
Have you guys ever stopped to think that maybe a system of government designed well over 200 years ago, that allowed you to own people and didn't let women vote, maybe isn't perfect?

Stupid take. Nothing in the constitution forbid women from voting and some states did allow them to vote from the beginning. More ignorance as usual from the board pedophile.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ucfmikes
Have you guys ever stopped to think that maybe a system of government designed well over 200 years ago, that allowed you to own people and didn't let women vote, maybe isn't perfect?

That's why you have to remind people that black lives matter, because "all" doesn't mean "all". "All" didn't mean "all" in "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" or "with liberty and justice for all."
 
Stupid take. Nothing in the constitution forbid women from voting and some states did allow them to vote from the beginning. More ignorance as usual from the board pedophile.
Would Biden be allowed to hang out with him?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT