voter exam

[ConHog]

damn right we should have them

Ten simple questions.

1. Who is the current POTUS
2. Who is the current governor of your state
3. What year was the COTUS ratified
4. How many states ratified it (trick question)
5. How many Amendments are there
6. Who becomes President if the President becomes incapable of doing so?
7. What are the three branches of the federal government
8. How many Senators are there
9. Locate Washington DC on an unmarked map (within a reasonable margin of error)
10. What is 12 * 12


Seriously anyone who couldn't nail at least 8 of those at ANY time should not be allowed to vote.

[Kathianne]

I don't like the idea of voter tests, I hope that the most ignorant just can't find their way to the polls, but if they do? If they have ID, let them vote too! ;)

Here's one test that covers some of the testing for citizenship:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills

[ConHog]

I don't like the idea of voter tests, I hope that the most ignorant just can't find their way to the polls, but if they do? If they have ID, let them vote too! ;)

Here's one test that covers some of the testing for citizenship:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills

My thought is that it is always the most ignorant that make damn sure they NEVER miss an election.

[taft2012]

The irony here is that any type of voter exam would wipe out the Democrats' strongest education demographic. Looking back at the past 3 presidential elections, the Democrats' strongest education demographic is among those with only 8th grade educations, whereas the GOP is strongest among college graduates.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9469/election-polls-vote-groups-20002004.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/Election-Polls-Vote-Groups-2008.aspx

Liberals tend to think themselves the highly educated demographic, when in actuality their most dependable demographic is the uneducated. Knock them out with tests like this and all you'll have left is a bunch of college professors in tweed jackets with patches on the elbows. :laugh:

[gabosaurus]

Republicans would never support a voter test. They rely heavily on "scratch your mark here" constituents. :rolleyes:

[jimnyc]

Republicans would never support a voter test. They rely heavily on "scratch your mark here" constituents. :rolleyes:

Which party is it again that wants to get rid of dead people voting, illegals & mandatory ID's? That's right, the republicans, while Democrats want to have every "illegal" vote they can get. You're quick with the wit, Gabs, too bad you're too short on facts every time.

[ConHog]

The irony here is that any type of voter exam would wipe out the Democrats' strongest education demographic. Looking back at the past 3 presidential elections, the Democrats' strongest education demographic is among those with only 8th grade educations, whereas the GOP is strongest among college graduates.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/9469/election-polls-vote-groups-20002004.aspx

http://www.gallup.com/poll/112132/Election-Polls-Vote-Groups-2008.aspx

Liberals tend to think themselves the highly educated demographic, when in actuality their most dependable demographic is the uneducated. Knock them out with tests like this and all you'll have left is a bunch of college professors in tweed jackets with patches on the elbows. :laugh:

The irony here is that I'm not a Democrat, nor even a liberal, so you're use of the word irony is ironic.

[ConHog]

Republicans would never support a voter test. They rely heavily on "scratch your mark here" constituents. :rolleyes:


Which party is it again that wants to get rid of dead people voting, illegals & mandatory ID's? That's right, the republicans, while Democrats want to have every "illegal" vote they can get. You're quick with the wit, Gabs, too bad you're too short on facts every time.

I counter BOTH of you by saying that BOTH parties have idiotic voters neither know nor care about anything except for "me pete, me vote __________"

Take for example

The Democrat who is whooping and hollering about Obama he gonna help the minorities right there, only stats show that minorities are in WORSE shape, as is nearly every group, since he took office. Facts don't matter, that my niggah right there.

The Republicans, what about the fools who are crying "the dems wanna take my guns............., the south shall rise again.........." despite the twin facts that A) no one can take your guns PERIOD and B) the most intrusive piece of gun legislation in this country was passed while a REPUBLICAN was President. Again, facts don't matter "__________________ wants to take my guns"

Being liberal or conservative in themselves does not make one stupid nor does it mean one isn't stupid. Plenty of stupid on each side...........

[taft2012]

It's pretty impressive how you can critique elitism with even greater elitism. :thumb:

[SassyLady]

I counter BOTH of you by saying that BOTH parties have idiotic voters neither know nor care about anything except for "me pete, me vote __________"

Take for example

The Democrat who is whooping and hollering about Obama he gonna help the minorities right there, only stats show that minorities are in WORSE shape, as is nearly every group, since he took office. Facts don't matter, that my niggah right there.

The Republicans, what about the fools who are crying "the dems wanna take my guns............., the south shall rise again.........." despite the twin facts that A) no one can take your guns PERIOD and B) the most intrusive piece of gun legislation in this country was passed while a REPUBLICAN was President. Again, facts don't matter "__________________ wants to take my guns"

Being liberal or conservative in themselves does not make one stupid nor does it mean one isn't stupid. Plenty of stupid on each side...........

Con....what good is my gun if I have to keep it in the trunk of my vehicle, unloaded? Perhaps the government of CA haven't actually taken it out of my possession, however, my right to use is so restricted that I might as well give it to them.

[jimnyc]

I counter BOTH of you

I did read the rest of your post, and agree to an extent, but the relevancy stopped here. I know there are idiots in both parties. But I only see Republicans working to shitcan the problems I mentioned, and not only are the Dems not fighting against this stuff, they're fighting to protect the ability to keep voter problems such as dead people, illegals and ID.

[Abbey Marie]

I don't like the idea of voter tests, I hope that the most ignorant just can't find their way to the polls, but if they do? If they have ID, let them vote too! ;)

Here's one test that covers some of the testing for citizenship:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills

Unfortunately, many of them get rides to the polls.

[ConHog]

Con....what good is my gun if I have to keep it in the trunk of my vehicle, unloaded? Perhaps the government of CA haven't actually taken it out of my possession, however, my right to use is so restricted that I might as well give it to them.

You have a right to have your guns Sassy, you don't have the right to use them. Otherwise a town couldn't even pass a law about firing off guns in public.

[jimnyc]

You have a right to have your guns Sassy, you don't have the right to use them. Otherwise a town couldn't even pass a law about firing off guns in public.

Then why grant citizens the right to bear arms if in the next sentence you say they have no right to use them? Sounds kind of counter productive to me. I understand fully the need for safety, but to tell someone they can own a gun but can only keep it in a manner in which is becomes basically useless, is kinda dumb.

[ConHog]

Then why grant citizens the right to bear arms if in the next sentence you say they have no right to use them? Sounds kind of counter productive to me. I understand fully the need for safety, but to tell someone they can own a gun but can only keep it in a manner in which is becomes basically useless, is kinda dumb.

This is why Jim.

The 2nd was ONLY intended to protect your right to bear arms against the government if need be. It was NEVER intended for you to have the right to shoot your weapons off in town. And of course if it comes to rebellion no one is going to give a shit about laws against firing weapons in town.

[jimnyc]

This is why Jim.

The 2nd was ONLY intended to protect your right to bear arms against the government if need be. It was NEVER intended for you to have the right to shoot your weapons off in town. And of course if it comes to rebellion no one is going to give a shit about laws against firing weapons in town.

So we're allowed to have the guns in case we need them against the government, but then we allow the government to dictate to us how and when we can use them?

I see what you're saying, and don't have much of a legal argument if that be the case, but it sounds dumb and counter productive to allowing us to have them. I'm not advocating for shooting them anywhere and carrying them anywhere, but the rights should lean more towards the gun owners. After all, it's in the constitution spelling out the rights, and I don't see any mention of limitations and the right for the government to minimize that right - but the government has made laws over the years limiting that right. I don't know. It reminds me of that frog video. If you drop him in hot water he will jump out immediately. But if you place him in room temperature water, and raise it very, very slowly, he will cook himself. I think the government is ever so slowly cooking us out of our rights regarding guns.

[gabosaurus]

What does any of this have to do with voter exams? :lame2:

[ConHog]

So we're allowed to have the guns in case we need them against the government, but then we allow the government to dictate to us how and when we can use them?

I see what you're saying, and don't have much of a legal argument if that be the case, but it sounds dumb and counter productive to allowing us to have them. I'm not advocating for shooting them anywhere and carrying them anywhere, but the rights should lean more towards the gun owners. After all, it's in the constitution spelling out the rights, and I don't see any mention of limitations and the right for the government to minimize that right - but the government has made laws over the years limiting that right. I don't know. It reminds me of that frog video. If you drop him in hot water he will jump out immediately. But if you place him in room temperature water, and raise it very, very slowly, he will cook himself. I think the government is ever so slowly cooking us out of our rights regarding guns.

Jim, follow the logic

If the government can say "no you can't have guns" then takes over as tyrants, you're screwed

If instead the government can say "yes you can have guns, but you can't fire them in town" then becomes tyrants then you can just say "fuck you" and fight them and who gives a shit about a law.

If you can't have the guns to begin with though, well then they own you. That is ALL the 2nd was designed for. Hell at the time of ratification it was illegal to fire a gun in most colonial cities even though dueling was still legal. They had to take that shit out of town limits.

[ConHog]

What does any of this have to do with voter exams? :lame2:

I could make the argument that if one doesn't have a rudimentary understanding of their rights, they shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[jimnyc]

What does any of this have to do with voter exams? :lame2:

Should I even bother with a reply, since we all know you'll just lob your shots and not return to answer anything anyway?

[jimnyc]

Jim, follow the logic

If the government can say "no you can't have guns" then takes over as tyrants, you're screwed

If instead the government can say "yes you can have guns, but you can't fire them in town" then becomes tyrants then you can just say "fuck you" and fight them and who gives a shit about a law.

If you can't have the guns to begin with though, well then they own you. That is ALL the 2nd was designed for. Hell at the time of ratification it was illegal to fire a gun in most colonial cities even though dueling was still legal. They had to take that shit out of town limits.

How about my logic:

A gun is basically useless if it can't be gotten to when your life is in danger. Anything restricting it and limiting a person from being able to utilize it when in a life threatening situation, should be a no go.

[gabosaurus]

Should I even bother with a reply, since we all know you'll just lob your shots and not return to answer anything anyway?

Pardon me for having a job and a family. I apologize for the lack of time I get to come here and debate with the hausfrauen.
But since my summer vacation began Friday but my daughter doesn't get out until this Friday, I am a bit bored at the moment.

[ConHog]

How about my logic:

A gun is basically useless if it can't be gotten to when your life is in danger. Anything restricting it and limiting a person from being able to utilize it when in a life threatening situation, should be a no go.

That's fine, but that isn't the purpose of the 2nd Amendment. It just can't be argued.

Now if you want to just argue that it should be legal to own a gun and have it where you can get to it if needed. Hell, I would agree with you. But you absolutely, positively, do NOT have the RIGHT to do so.

Think about it, if the Second LITERALLY meant "the government can't pass gun laws" well hell fire, even a law against firing a gun from the side of the road would be unconstitutional.

[mundame]

Oh, whoops, I was going to reply to page one, but I see the thread has already transmogrified to a gun rights thread.

I like the idea of a test, and even more I think that only taxpayers should vote. Those simply consuming should not (doesn't include persons paying on or collecting Soc. Security, of course, because that is a pension scheme, not a tax. In theory.).

After all, Heinlein said only current or past citizen soldiers should vote. So I am not so radical thinking that only people who actually pay for the government should vote on it ---- that was the way it was done forever in many countries until quite recently.

[ConHog]

Oh, whoops, I was going to reply to page one, but I see the thread has already transmogrified to a gun rights thread.

I like the idea of a test, and even more I think that only taxpayers should vote. Those simply consuming should not (doesn't include persons paying on or collecting Soc. Security, of course, because that is a pension scheme, not a tax. In theory.).

After all, Heinlein said only current or past citizen soldiers should vote. So I am not so radical thinking that only people who actually pay for the government should vote on it ---- that was the way it was done forever in many countries until quite recently.

Are we talking about only those who pay INCOME tax? If so, disagree. By your notion if an honest, educated person were to befall hard times and not have any taxable income they wouldn't get to vote. ALso there are some people who are just family money rich, they don't have any income, so they pay no income taxes. Those people should also get to vote.

Everyone, nearly, pays taxes of some sort of another.

I do however think that anyone who has been on the public dole for over 50% of the time between elections should be ineligible to vote. That includes ANY form of welfare from SSI to foodstamps to TIF to whatever.........

[red states rule]

My thought is that it is always the most ignorant that make damn sure they NEVER miss an election.

**sigh** It is clear then you have never missed voting in any election during your lifetime

[red states rule]

This is why Jim.

The 2nd was ONLY intended to protect your right to bear arms against the government if need be. It was NEVER intended for you to have the right to shoot your weapons off in town. And of course if it comes to rebellion no one is going to give a shit about laws against firing weapons in town.

http://thecafeallegro.com/randomthoughts/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/anti-gun1.gif

[SassyLady]

Jim, follow the logic

If the government can say "no you can't have guns" then takes over as tyrants, you're screwed

If instead the government can say "yes you can have guns, but you can't fire them in town" then becomes tyrants then you can just say "fuck you" and fight them and who gives a shit about a law.

If you can't have the guns to begin with though, well then they own you. That is ALL the 2nd was designed for. Hell at the time of ratification it was illegal to fire a gun in most colonial cities even though dueling was still legal. They had to take that shit out of town limits.

Does the Amendment give us the right to own ammunition? What good is a gun without ammunition. CA currently tracks how much ammunition we buy. How soon before they just say ... "you can own your guns, but you can't own ammunition"....not a protected right. You know those lawyers will find a way.

[SassyLady]

How about we first get people to present photo I.D. to vote and then we'll worry about testing?

[SassyLady]

Kinda off topic ..... went to Exchange today on local airbase. Had to show I.D., give them my social security number and fingerprint to get a temp pass. Was worth it ... can't understand why someone wouldn't think the right to vote would be worth going through the same process. Oh, also had to have picture taken because when my driver's license photo was taken I had short, auburn hair and it's now long and blonde. So, they had to make sure all my I.D. info matched and then take photo for temp pass.

I really miss the days I just had to show them my military I.D. and drive on through.

[taft2012]

This is why Jim.

The 2nd was ONLY intended to protect your right to bear arms against the government if need be. It was NEVER intended for you to have the right to shoot your weapons off in town.

I don't think anyone supports people going into town and shooting their guns willy nilly.

Do you have a reasonable argument to support your point?

[ConHog]

I don't think anyone supports people going into town and shooting their guns willy nilly.

Do you have a reasonable argument to support your point?

The VERY people who wrote the COTUS favored gun control laws, What they did NOT want is gun confiscation laws. Those are two different things.

[jimnyc]

The VERY people who wrote the COTUS favored gun control laws, What they did NOT want is gun confiscation laws. Those are two different things.

List of them and their statements and inclusion into the COTUS to that point...

[ConHog]

List of them and their statements and inclusion into the COTUS to that point...

Not avoiding, just no time to do the research at the moment. I'll get back to you tonight.

[jimnyc]

Not avoiding, just no time to do the research at the moment. I'll get back to you tonight.

How about a teaser then? If they favored such, why did they not address that in the document?

[aboutime]

Republicans would never support a voter test. They rely heavily on "scratch your mark here" constituents. :rolleyes:


So gabosaurus. What would you personally use to make that 'scratch' when voting for Obama?

[ConHog]

How about a teaser then? If they favored such, why did they not address that in the document?

Because they put more faith in their fellow man having common sense then was deserved.

Seriously , there are PLENTY of areas where the COTUS could have been clearer but it wasn't. I know we have this romantic image of the founding fathers being infallible, but that simply isn't true. The COTUS is NOT a perfect document, no matter what anyone says..

[jimnyc]

Because they put more faith in their fellow man having common sense then was deserved.

Seriously , there are PLENTY of areas where the COTUS could have been clearer but it wasn't. I know we have this romantic image of the founding fathers being infallible, but that simply isn't true. The COTUS is NOT a perfect document, no matter what anyone says..

So anything they didn't address, we can just say that they were in favor of such regulation or liberties, but that they had faith in fellow man to sort it out? I doubt that. I think what is in there is in there and what isn't, well isn't. If they wanted the government to regulate such, as they specified in other areas, I'm sure there would be something in the document allowing the government to regulate arms. You can't say they favored something and then in the next breath say they didn't bother to address it in the document, unless of course they didn't favor it enough to do so.

[aboutime]

I don't like the idea of voter tests, I hope that the most ignorant just can't find their way to the polls, but if they do? If they have ID, let them vote too! ;)

Here's one test that covers some of the testing for citizenship:

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2011/0104/Could-you-pass-a-US-citizenship-test/Who-signs-bills


I took that test about two months ago on another board.
I do like the idea of the test. But I prefer to make sure, or certain. Anyone who votes IS...actually eligible, able, and alive FIRST.

[ConHog]

So anything they didn't address, we can just say that they were in favor of such regulation or liberties, but that they had faith in fellow man to sort it out? I doubt that. I think what is in there is in there and what isn't, well isn't. If they wanted the government to regulate such, as they specified in other areas, I'm sure there would be something in the document allowing the government to regulate arms. You can't say they favored something and then in the next breath say they didn't bother to address it in the document, unless of course they didn't favor it enough to do so.

no, as I said, colonials cities that the founders themselves lived in had laws against carrying guns in town. That is why duels took place OUT OF town. This was both before, during, and after the COTUS was written.

That's a pretty clear indication that they FF were okay with gun laws. Doesn't it?

[jimnyc]

no, as I said, colonials cities that the founders themselves lived in had laws against carrying guns in town. That is why duels took place OUT OF town. This was both before, during, and after the COTUS was written.

That's a pretty clear indication that they FF were okay with gun laws. Doesn't it?

No, it means that there were laws back then. I'll wait to see specific proof that they themselves, who wrote and signed the document, were in fact for allowing the government to regulate gun control. Of course I agree that there have to be some sort of safety standards and control against just firing anywhere one pleases - but I also think there has to be checks in place to ensure the government doesn't overstep its authority, like telling an entire state or region that they can't own guns, or by passing laws that effectively make owning a gun useless in cases of self defense.

[aboutime]

Because they put more faith in their fellow man having common sense then was deserved.

Seriously , there are PLENTY of areas where the COTUS could have been clearer but it wasn't. I know we have this romantic image of the founding fathers being infallible, but that simply isn't true. The COTUS is NOT a perfect document, no matter what anyone says..


Until someone, or the various states...as mentioned in the Document come together to CHANGE, or AMEND the document. Whether you, or anyone else insists it is not a perfect document DOESN'T matter.
The Constitution. As written today. Is the Law of the Land.
Until it is changed. It IS the most perfect source we have. Unlike other nations who can't come close to enjoying the Freedoms, Rights, and Liberties we have.

[ConHog]

No, it means that there were laws back then. I'll wait to see specific proof that they themselves, who wrote and signed the document, were in fact for allowing the government to regulate gun control. Of course I agree that there have to be some sort of safety standards and control against just firing anywhere one pleases - but I also think there has to be checks in place to ensure the government doesn't overstep its authority, like telling an entire state or region that they can't own guns, or by passing laws that effectively make owning a gun useless in cases of self defense.
We disagree only on the aspect of self defense. If self defense were the purpose of the 2nd then the founders would have recognized that sometimes a person may need to defend themselves in town, and thus gun laws outlawing carrying guns in town negate that ability. They did not, so it stands to reason that self defense was not the purpose of the second.



Until someone, or the various states...as mentioned in the Document come together to CHANGE, or AMEND the document. Whether you, or anyone else insists it is not a perfect document DOESN'T matter.
The Constitution. As written today. Is the Law of the Land.
Until it is changed. It IS the most perfect source we have. Unlike other nations who can't come close to enjoying the Freedoms, Rights, and Liberties we have.


who said differently? Well stated IMHO

[ConHog]

Here Jim, read this

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf


Interesting history of gun laws in colonial America. Now certainly some of these laws actually REQUIRED gun ownership, but if we went by JUST the wording of the Second, wouldn't those laws be unconstitutional as well?

[Kathianne]

Here Jim, read this

http://www.saf.org/journal/16/colonialfirearmregulation.pdf


Interesting history of gun laws in colonial America. Now certainly some of these laws actually REQUIRED gun ownership, but if we went by JUST the wording of the Second, wouldn't those laws be unconstitutional as well?

Then again, in some colonies there were official churches. You practiced or you were sent packing, sometimes via riding the rail. Hint, Colonial America preceded the Constitution. Yea, I assume you knew that, which makes your comment to Jim all the more irrelevant.

[ConHog]

Then again, in some colonies there were official churches. You practiced or you were sent packing, sometimes via riding the rail. Hint, Colonial America preceded the Constitution. Yea, I assume you knew that, which makes your comment to Jim all the more irrelevant.

No it doesnt make it irrelevant. It instead opens another debate about whether the first was ever meant to apply to states. My opinion on that is no

What is it about this board lately labeling any facts that disagree with your opinions as irrelevant? Didnt used to be that way

[Kathianne]

No it doesnt make it irrelevant. It instead opens another debate about whether the first was ever meant to apply to states. My opinion on that is no

What is it about this board lately labeling any facts that disagree with your opinion as irrelevant? Didnt used to be that way

Lots of things 'didn't used to be that way,' many have become that way since you joined. That too didn't stop things from changing more.

Comparing life in Colonial America to The United States of America is useful only in the sense of how people got from 'here to there.' Yes, we carry some of those influences, such as a tradition of being a bit more Puritan than are European cousins. Yes, we were influenced by town meetings and also the British sense of laws. However, to put 16th or 17th C laws as a basis for comparison with late 18 or 19th C? Irrelevant.

[jimnyc]

Something tells me these colonial times wouldn't pass the constitutional test, not even close. So what happened back then doesn't really matter. In fact this is probably part of the reason WHY they pointed out rights to bear arms.


Recently published scholarship concerning the regulation of firearms in Colonial America claims that because Colonial governments distrusted the free population with guns, the laws required guns to be stored centrally, and were not generally allowed in private hands. According to this view, even those guns allowed in private hands were always considered the property of the government.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Then again, in some colonies there were official churches. You practiced or you were sent packing, sometimes via riding the rail. Hint, Colonial America preceded the Constitution. Yea, I assume you knew that, which makes your comment to Jim all the more irrelevant.

The Colonies preceding our Constitution were a large reason WHY the founders KNEW that a brilliantly conceived and well written Ruling DOCUMENT HAD TO BE BIRTHED! A document that could give governing guidance and unite the colonies into a strong nation! Thier was very little real unity until after the high and mighty British King forced it with his high taxes and complete disregard of our God given rights! A mistake that cost him dearly and rightly so. Comparing the various pre-Constitutional laws of the colonies with the Bill of rights and our currently advanced and amended Constitution is , well is simply put, ridiculous IMHO. -Tyr

[aboutime]

I fully understand WE THE PEOPLE will always have differing opinions, and offer differing idea's about the Founding Fathers, and the hows, and why's they created, and agreed to in making the Constitution the long lasting document it is.
I honestly cannot, and will not pretend to know what might have been on their (Founding Fathers) minds more than 200 years ago. So I will not attempt to suggest that I, or anyone else living today has such a VIEW into the minds of those men so long ago.
Consequently. As I have stated before on this thread.
Until the idea's and decisions made by the Founding Fathers are changed....according to the instructions laid out in the document. The ENTIRE Constitution Is, and Must be recognized, and followed as they DESIGNED it to be. Not as some of us THINK, or WISH it to be recognized, or followed.
Obama has convinced Under educated, and Un-educated Americans that he is the KNOW-ALL, SEE-ALL of teaching the constitution. Which is why he must feel so powerful, and more knowledgeable to Ignore, and Not follow the document intentionally.
He flaunts his so-called knowledge to those who have LITTLE, if ANY knowledge. And because they are so uninformed. They are easily led into believing Obama is the Master of Everything they cannot, and should not question him about.
So. Until the constitution is changed, or amended Legally, and Officially.
Our Constitution. The one we use today. Remains totally In Effect. PERIOD.

[ConHog]

I guess I am confused as to why some believe that gun laws passed in the US between 1776 and 1787 are irrelevant to the history of gun laws in the U.S. Or are some just not aware that the US existed pre COTUS?


I suggest some of you read the earliest court rulings.

U S v. CRUIKSHANK

Ruling

The Supreme Court ruled on a range of issues and found the indictment faulty. It overturned the convictions of two defendants in the case. The Court did not incorporate the Bill of Rights to the states and found that the First Amendment right to assembly "was not intended to limit the powers of the State governments in respect to their own citizens" and that the Second Amendment "has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government."

Although the Enforcement Act had been designed primarily to allow Federal enforcement and prosecution of actions of the Ku Klux Klan and other secret vigilante groups in preventing blacks from voting and murdering them,[3] the Cruikshank court held that the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses applied only to state action, and not to actions of individuals: "The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another."[4]

or , how about this case

Presser v. Illinois

where The traditional reading of Presser is that it affirms the states' rights view articulated in Cruikshank

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presser_v._Illinois

or how about...................... well you get the point.


http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/fedcases.2nd.html#SC3

if you read the various case laws, the Court has ruled OVER and OVER and OVER that the 2nd was solely designed to protect the right to own weapons in the need of arming the militia.

In fact, by those standards I would argue that we have a constitutional right to own a SAW249 , but we do not have the right to carry that bad boy around town and the government can pass laws stating as such.

[taft2012]

no, as I said, colonials cities that the founders themselves lived in had laws against carrying guns in town. That is why duels took place OUT OF town.

So the thinking was: "I don't want to get arrested inside the town with a firearm, but I don't care if I get arrested for shooting someone with that gun outside the town"?

[ConHog]

So the thinking was: "I don't want to get arrested inside the town with a firearm, but I don't care if I get arrested for shooting someone with that gun outside the town"?

Dueling was legal, as long as it took place outaide of town.

[fj1200]

damn right we should have them

The state should not have the power to decide who gets to vote on the ultimate power of the state.

Back to the landed gentry I say...

[ConHog]

The state should not have the power to decide who gets to vote on the ultimate power of the state.

Back to the landed gentry I say...

Ah, finally back to the topic.

I know you disagree with me on voter exams, but I don't think that having a balanced and fair exam is exactly allowing the state to decided who can vote. It's letting an individual decide if they want to vote or not.

[fj1200]

Ah, finally back to the topic.

I know you disagree with me on voter exams, but I don't think that having a balanced and fair exam is exactly allowing the state to decided who can vote. It's letting an individual decide if they want to vote or not.

Any time the state has a hand in deciding who gets what, rights or otherwise, there will be bias.

[ConHog]

Any time the state has a hand in deciding who gets what, rights or otherwise, there will be bias.

so don't let the state design, implement, or administer the test.

[fj1200]

so don't let the state design, implement, or administer the test.

Irrelevant, you're talking about a state mandate. Besides, government belongs to the people; by the people... for the people... and all that jazz.

[Kathianne]

Any time the state has a hand in deciding who gets what, rights or otherwise, there will be bias.

Which is exactly what he's been arguing for, limitations of the franchise.

[fj1200]

Which is exactly what he's been arguing for, limitations of the franchise.

I know. I can agree with the sentiment of having educated voters making informed decisions just not his means of achieving said.

[ConHog]

Which is exactly what he's been arguing for, limitations of the franchise.

Correct. And I would argue that since voting is not a right the forefathers gave all, and in fact they themselves limited the franchise that I am being completely constitutional when I suggest we should do so.

Now those limits should not be based on race,sex, skin color, religion,income level, party affiliation, or anything of that nature. But we should limit the voting to people who actually care enough to inform themselves.