(02-18-2018 04:32 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.


I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

I agree with this.

But limiting people's voting rights? I can't support that at all, you should just need to be a citizen.

An irresponsible voter, individually, is far less of a danger than an irresponsible gun owner. But an irresponsible electorate, in the aggregate, is in my view a greater danger to our republic. Just as the right to gun ownership should bring heavy responsibilities, so should the right of citizens to vote.

I am in favor of society having authority to remove guns from people who cannot demonstrate a clear ability to handle them. (Full disclosure: I am not myself a gun owner, and am uncomfortable in their proximity.)

Why should voting be different? Laws or procedures that discriminate against the right of any citizen to vote need to be erased. But so should laws or procedures that encourage irresponsible voting. The sacred nature of a vote cast by an informed citizen is diluted when we encourage non-citizen or uninformed voting. This is happening more and more -- with unrestricted mail-in or early-voting ballots, with automatic restoration of felon voting rights, by attempts to allow voting without valid i.d.

miko33 makes an excellent point: Constitutional rights are sacred, but they not absolute. They are conditional. The First Amendment right of free expression does not allow someone to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion cannot be used as a cover for polygamy or child abuse. The right to free association does not permit business to bar access based upon race, gender, etc.

There likewise can and should be some level of restrictions to the Constitutional rights of gun ownership and voting.

(02-19-2018 08:16 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(02-18-2018 04:32 PM)mturn017 Wrote:  

(02-15-2018 01:41 PM)aTxTIGER Wrote:  I dont think its against the 2nd amendment to require people to:

a) be a citizen to possess a gun
b) require anyone possessing a gun to be properly licensed AND insured for bodily damage done by those guns
c) to be licensed, screen for mental health issues or violent tendencies as well as complete real gun training and safety classes(not just 2 hours on a single Saturday which is what I did to get my carry permit years ago)
d) restrict ownership of assault weapons like AR-15s to current law enforcement officers.


I own several guns. I am for the rights of people to own guns. But I dont think it is unreasonable for gun ownership to have responsibilities attached to it.

I agree with this.

But limiting people's voting rights? I can't support that at all, you should just need to be a citizen.

An irresponsible voter, individually, is far less of a danger than an irresponsible gun owner. But an irresponsible electorate, in the aggregate, is in my view a greater danger to our republic. Just as the right to gun ownership should bring heavy responsibilities, so should the right of citizens to vote.

I am in favor of society having authority to remove guns from people who cannot demonstrate a clear ability to handle them. (Full disclosure: I am not myself a gun owner, and am uncomfortable in their proximity.)

Why should voting be different? Laws or procedures that discriminate against the right of any citizen to vote need to be erased. But so should laws or procedures that encourage irresponsible voting. The sacred nature of a vote cast by an informed citizen is diluted when we encourage non-citizen or uninformed voting. This is happening more and more -- with unrestricted mail-in or early-voting ballots, with automatic restoration of felon voting rights, by attempts to allow voting without valid i.d.

miko33 makes an excellent point: Constitutional rights are sacred, but they not absolute. They are conditional. The First Amendment right of free expression does not allow someone to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theater. Freedom of religion cannot be used as a cover for polygamy or child abuse. The right to free association does not permit business to bar access based upon race, gender, etc.

There likewise can and should be some level of restrictions to the Constitutional rights of gun ownership and voting.

We don't encourage non-citizen voting. Citizenship has been required by every state since 1926 when Arkansas became the last state to condition the right to vote on citizenship. Since 1996 Federal law has barred states from permitting non-citizens to vote in Federal elections even though it had been 70 years since any had.

Informed voting a very different nut to crack.

That came home to me when I was listening to a candidate for state auditor as the guest on a radio program. The candidate spoke only of his opposition to abortion and support of the second amendment. He was either unaware of the duties or just didn't care because he figured he could win with BS. He lost the GOP primary to a better established candidate.

In my small city, an alderman running for re-election sent out mailers touting her support of gun rights and opposition to abortion, critical issues city councils deal with daily.

Now on the face not a bad strategy. George Bush carried the city vs Clinton (and this is in Arkansas) and Dole carried the city as well. The JP district was one of the first to elect a GOP JP. We've elected GOP state reps and senators long before Republicans took over the state legislature.

But the electorate was informed and defeated her for another woman who campaigned on building more sidewalks, upgrading the fire department and addressing a local flooding issue.

That isn't always the case though.

(02-19-2018 01:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  We don't encourage non-citizen voting.

The example that I have in mind, which I believe is accurate, is California's policy of treating driver's license applications as automatic voting registration, unless the applicant affirmatively opts out.

Since California, by law, makes driver's licenses available to non-citizens -- and is lax about voter id requirements -- that equates to encouragement of non-citizen voting.

(02-19-2018 01:51 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(02-19-2018 01:00 PM)arkstfan Wrote:  We don't encourage non-citizen voting.

The example that I have in mind, which I believe is accurate, is California's policy of treating driver's license applications as automatic voting registration, unless the applicant affirmatively opts out.

Since California, by law, makes driver's licenses available to non-citizens -- and is lax about voter id requirements -- that equates to encouragement of non-citizen voting.

Combine that with California law that denies the polling places to actually check who you are......