[Umami]

Originally Posted by slateman

From now on, whenever you have an argument for licensing firearms, I want you to replace "firearms" with "voting rights." Do you really want a private company to have a say over what the Constitution says you already have the right to?

I know it's a dumb argument. You're using the same one for firearms ownership. There is no difference. Licenses are written permission from the government to do something. WE DO NOT NEED THE GOVERNMENT'S PERMISSION TO EXERCISE OUR RIGHTS.

The government already runs and administers voting. You have the right to vote, and the government is what stops you from doing it twice.

I don't see how firearms training would be any different.

Originally Posted by slateman

We dump tons of money in to welfare programs. Yet we still have issues. The problem isn't the money, the problem is the people. If you want to help people, you have to create a system that makes getting off of welfare a positive thing. No more generational welfare. No more paying for kids that were born on welfare.

I don't want to get into this argument here, but I'm aware of the barriers to getting off welfare. Suffice it to say I think the system could be re-done in a way that isn't inhumane, but doesn't create the incentives to stay on welfare either. Different thread sometime.

I'm not going to advocate starving children, though.

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

Automated vehicles will not replace human drivers in the automobile for at least 20 years (realistically more like 50 years due to planning and programming). The infrastructure, funding, legal issues and education on the use of automated vehicles are not there to provide for such a dramatic change. This is just a downright bad analogy.

In my mind, 50 years is a short time. And we all agree, cars were a bad analogy to begin with.

[mnp8nt]

Originally Posted by Umami

In my mind, 50 years is a short time. And we all agree, cars were a bad analogy to begin with.

Sure, I'm disagreeing with your framing of that analogy. 50 years in terms of infrastructure planning is a long time. As it was stated in an earlier thread it's unreasonable to project economic projections out 10 years, much less 50 years.

Of course in your mind, it is reasonable to support decriminalizing the use of harmful drugs while also supporting the criminalization of 'harmful' firearms. Interesting to say the least.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

Sure, I'm disagreeing with your framing of that analogy. 50 years in terms of infrastructure planning is a long time. As it was stated in an earlier thread it's unreasonable to project economic plans out 10 years, much less 50 years.

Of course in your mind, it is reasonable to support decriminalizing the use of harmful drugs while also supporting the criminalization of 'harmful' firearms. Interesting to say the least.

I have not supported the criminalization of 'harmful' firearms. You are demonstrating an inability to read.

And cars were slateman's analogy, not mine.

[mnp8nt]

Originally Posted by Umami

I have not supported the criminalization of 'harmful' firearms. You are demonstrating an inability to read.

And cars were slateman's analogy, not mine.

Restriction of 'assault weapons', high capacity magazines and other ownership is not criminalization ad hoc ? Really, so drug possession isn't a crime. I read just fine, your response to slateman was unreasonable.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Umami

The government already runs and administers voting. You have the right to vote, and the government is what stops you from doing it twice.

I don't see how firearms training would be any different.

Does the government ban you from voting because you have not completed the required training?

[Umami]

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

Restriction of ownership is not criminalization ad hoc ? Really, so drug possession isn't a crime.

I don't understand what you're trying to communicate.

Originally Posted by mnp8nt

I read just fine, your response to slateman was unreasonable.

If it was, you totally missed my point. The self-driving cars comment was more of an aside than anything.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by slateman

Does the government ban you from voting because you have not completed the required training?

In some states, thanks to Republican lawmakers, if you haven't registered yes. If you don't have a SS number, yes.

Otherwise, no. Which is why I don't understand your hesitation with government administered firearms training.

edit: I've got things to do before the game tonight. Catch you later guys.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Umami

In some states, thanks to Republican lawmakers, if you haven't registered yes. If you don't have a SS number, yes.

Otherwise, no. Which is why I don't understand your hesitation with government administered firearms training.

edit: I've got things to do before the game tonight. Catch you later guys.

In other words, they do a background check first ...

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Umami

Here's a proposal: A gun license requires firearms training to obtain.

Sounds so familiar... neatly similar to a poll tax.

[berserker19]

Voting regulation is such a terrible analogy to anything. Every day I see dozens of immigrants (foreign nationals) who have voted in the US for years, the gov't doesn't even check.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by berserker19

Voting regulation is such a terrible analogy to anything. Every day I see dozens of immigrants (foreign nationals) who have voted in the US for years, the gov't doesn't even check.

Here is a kick in they pants for all the federalists (in Madison they trust): voting eligibility is controlled by the states.

[Umami]

Originally Posted by barrel roll

Here is a kick in they pants for all the federalists (in Madison they trust): voting eligibility is controlled by the states.

Not if they violate the 14th.

[barrel roll]

Originally Posted by Umami

Not if they violate the 14th.

And what does the 14th say? Might as well do a word for word brake down of it.

[Iamamartianchurch]

The 14th is the one with all that silly anti discrimination hub lub. Right?

[barrel roll]

I'll start:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

[chodeyg]

Just watched lapierre in 1999 saying he thought it was reasonable for everyone to be subject to a background check, no loophole. These liberals are stealing our country and taking our jerbs.

[Space Pope]

How do you propose subjecting people to a completely self-enforced background check is going to solve any problems?

[chodeyg]

Ask lapierre, that welfare leeching lerberal

[$h@key J0nEZ]

Wannabe communist libtards fail at being free.

[$h@key J0nEZ]

[Space Pope]

This poor child...