At least 30 shot in Texas

[BackInTex]

The standard BiT is attempting to apply is perfection. It MIGHT be possible for someone to fool someone with fake documents, so there's no point to even trying to require background checks. --Bob

It's interesting that right wingers don't apply nearly the same stringent standards when concocting one restriction after another on voting rights in an effort to "deter" some hypothetical voter fraud.

But you see, gun ownership involves sacred Second Amendment rights that must never be burdened, much less infringed. Voting rights are nowhere near as important. --Bob

The background checks you want won’t require an ID? Really? How effective could they be?

[Bob78164]

It's interesting that right wingers don't apply nearly the same stringent standards when concocting one restriction after another on voting rights in an effort to "deter" some hypothetical voter fraud.

But you see, gun ownership involves sacred Second Amendment rights that must never be burdened, much less infringed. Voting rights are nowhere near as important. --Bob

The background checks you want won’t require an ID? Really? How effective could they be?

When was the last time you showed an ID before you cast a vote by mail? --Bob

[BackInTex]

But you see, gun ownership involves sacred Second Amendment rights that must never be burdened, much less infringed. Voting rights are nowhere near as important. --Bob

The background checks you want won’t require an ID? Really? How effective could they be?

When was the last time you showed an ID before you cast a vote by mail? --Bob

Don't move the discussion because you can't support your attacks. Requiring an ID is not more stringent than requiring an ID and performing a background check.

[Bob78164]

The background checks you want won’t require an ID? Really? How effective could they be?

When was the last time you showed an ID before you cast a vote by mail? --Bob

Don't move the discussion because you can't support your attacks. Requiring an ID is not more stringent than requiring an ID and performing a background check.

I'm not the one moving the discussion. Background checks should require an ID. They will help prevent lots and lots of people from violently dying, apparently including but not limited to the Odessa victims.

Voting shouldn't require anything more than the voter's say-so. It's a system that's worked well for a very long time with almost no instances of fraudulent in-person voting. --Bob

[tlynn78]

When was the last time you showed an ID before you cast a vote by mail? --Bob

Don't move the discussion because you can't support your attacks. Requiring an ID is not more stringent than requiring an ID and performing a background check.

I'm not the one moving the discussion. Background checks should require an ID. They will help prevent lots and lots of people from violently dying, apparently including but not limited to the Odessa victims.

Voting shouldn't require anything more than the voter's say-so. It's a system that's worked well for a very long time with almost no instances of fraudulent in-person voting. --Bob

Could you be more laughable?

[Bob78164]

Don't move the discussion because you can't support your attacks. Requiring an ID is not more stringent than requiring an ID and performing a background check.

I'm not the one moving the discussion. Background checks should require an ID. They will help prevent lots and lots of people from violently dying, apparently including but not limited to the Odessa victims.

Voting shouldn't require anything more than the voter's say-so. It's a system that's worked well for a very long time with almost no instances of fraudulent in-person voting. --Bob

Could you be more laughable?

There are an awful lot of people who have attended funerals for the victims of gun violence that don't find this the least bit laughable. And "This is the price we have to pay to live in a Second Amendment world, so there's nothing that can be done" is not an acceptable answer. Neither is the bullshit attempt to change the subject to mental health care, particularly when the Republican Congress used the Congressional Review Act to repeal regulations, enacted late in the Obama Administration, that would have prevented more mentally ill persons from acquiring guns. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

I'm not the one moving the discussion. Background checks should require an ID. They will help prevent lots and lots of people from violently dying, apparently including but not limited to the Odessa victims.

Voting shouldn't require anything more than the voter's say-so. It's a system that's worked well for a very long time with almost no instances of fraudulent in-person voting. --Bob

Could you be more laughable?

There are an awful lot of people who have attended funerals for the victims of gun violence that don't find this the least bit laughable. And "This is the price we have to pay to live in a Second Amendment world, so there's nothing that can be done" is not an acceptable answer. Neither is the bullshit attempt to change the subject to mental health care, particularly when the Republican Congress used the Congressional Review Act to repeal regulations, enacted late in the Obama Administration, that would have prevented more mentally ill persons from acquiring guns. --Bob

Gun legislation by the US Congress is specifically forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They shall not 'infringe' on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution also puts only 2 requirements for voting in this country. That the person should be at least 21 (later changed to 18 by the 26th amendment, which happens to be the correct way to change the Constitution if you don't like it), and that the person be a US CITIZEN.

Now what that says to me is that any single state can make any gun law they want, see what works and what doesn't and other states can decide for themselves what works best. But the Federal government cannot.

It also says to me that the Federal government can and should do everything it can to ensure that only US Citizens are able to vote. Not Illegal immigrants. Not those with green cards. Not those who overstay their visas. Not those who say they are without any proof. That is certainly laughable. And as a US citizen, I will be more than happy to present any form of ID required to vote, if I am confident it will keep people who do not have that right from casting a ballot.

If you do not agree with either of those scenarios, BWBJ, you and your minions are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution that permits the US Congress to make a law that infringes on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. You are also free to propose an amendment to allow anyone from anywhere to vote in US elections. I don't care one bit about your reasons, excuses or weaseling. That is our system of law. I know they didn't teach the Constitution at Acme, but they apparently specialized in weaselling. So now you can tell me in your best self righteous, bombastic pomposity how I know nothing about it. Start your weaselling. And trolls, do your stuff.

[Bob78164]

Gun legislation by the US Congress is specifically forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They shall not 'infringe' on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution also puts only 2 requirements for voting in this country. That the person should be at least 21 (later changed to 18 by the 26th amendment, which happens to be the correct way to change the Constitution if you don't like it), and that the person be a US CITIZEN.

Now what that says to me is that any single state can make any gun law they want, see what works and what doesn't and other states can decide for themselves what works best. But the Federal government cannot.

It also says to me that the Federal government can and should do everything it can to ensure that only US Citizens are able to vote. Not Illegal immigrants. Not those with green cards. Not those who overstay their visas. Not those who say they are without any proof. That is certainly laughable. And as a US citizen, I will be more than happy to present any form of ID required to vote, if I am confident it will keep people who do not have that right from casting a ballot.

If you do not agree with either of those scenarios, BWBJ, you and your minions are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution that permits the US Congress to make a law that infringes on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. You are also free to propose an amendment to allow anyone from anywhere to vote in US elections. I don't care one bit about your reasons, excuses or weaseling. That is our system of law. I know they didn't teach the Constitution at Acme, but they apparently specialized in weaselling. So now you can tell me in your best self righteous, bombastic pomposity how I know nothing about it. Start your weaselling. And trolls, do your stuff.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

[Spock]

Gun legislation by the US Congress is specifically forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They shall not 'infringe' on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution also puts only 2 requirements for voting in this country. That the person should be at least 21 (later changed to 18 by the 26th amendment, which happens to be the correct way to change the Constitution if you don't like it), and that the person be a US CITIZEN.

Now what that says to me is that any single state can make any gun law they want, see what works and what doesn't and other states can decide for themselves what works best. But the Federal government cannot.

It also says to me that the Federal government can and should do everything it can to ensure that only US Citizens are able to vote. Not Illegal immigrants. Not those with green cards. Not those who overstay their visas. Not those who say they are without any proof. That is certainly laughable. And as a US citizen, I will be more than happy to present any form of ID required to vote, if I am confident it will keep people who do not have that right from casting a ballot.

If you do not agree with either of those scenarios, BWBJ, you and your minions are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution that permits the US Congress to make a law that infringes on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. You are also free to propose an amendment to allow anyone from anywhere to vote in US elections. I don't care one bit about your reasons, excuses or weaseling. That is our system of law. I know they didn't teach the Constitution at Acme, but they apparently specialized in weaselling. So now you can tell me in your best self righteous, bombastic pomposity how I know nothing about it. Start your weaselling. And trolls, do your stuff.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

When Chicago has a (2018) murder rate of 24 per 100,000-mainly by handguns and North Dakota has a (2017) murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000-I don't think AR 15 type weapons are the problem. I guarantee that ND has more AR-15 type weapons per capita than Chicago does.

Lack of father figures in the home-Number one cause of gun deaths.

[Bob78164]

Gun legislation by the US Congress is specifically forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They shall not 'infringe' on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution also puts only 2 requirements for voting in this country. That the person should be at least 21 (later changed to 18 by the 26th amendment, which happens to be the correct way to change the Constitution if you don't like it), and that the person be a US CITIZEN.

Now what that says to me is that any single state can make any gun law they want, see what works and what doesn't and other states can decide for themselves what works best. But the Federal government cannot.

It also says to me that the Federal government can and should do everything it can to ensure that only US Citizens are able to vote. Not Illegal immigrants. Not those with green cards. Not those who overstay their visas. Not those who say they are without any proof. That is certainly laughable. And as a US citizen, I will be more than happy to present any form of ID required to vote, if I am confident it will keep people who do not have that right from casting a ballot.

If you do not agree with either of those scenarios, BWBJ, you and your minions are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution that permits the US Congress to make a law that infringes on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. You are also free to propose an amendment to allow anyone from anywhere to vote in US elections. I don't care one bit about your reasons, excuses or weaseling. That is our system of law. I know they didn't teach the Constitution at Acme, but they apparently specialized in weaselling. So now you can tell me in your best self righteous, bombastic pomposity how I know nothing about it. Start your weaselling. And trolls, do your stuff.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

When Chicago has a (2018) murder rate of 24 per 100,000-mainly by handguns and North Dakota has a (2017) murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000-I don't think AR 15 type weapons are the problem. I guarantee that ND has more AR-15 type weapons per capita than Chicago does.

Lack of father figures in the home-Number one cause of gun deaths.

The data disagrees with you. --Bob

[Spock]

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

When Chicago has a (2018) murder rate of 24 per 100,000-mainly by handguns and North Dakota has a (2017) murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000-I don't think AR 15 type weapons are the problem. I guarantee that ND has more AR-15 type weapons per capita than Chicago does.

Lack of father figures in the home-Number one cause of gun deaths.

The data disagrees with you. --Bob

Before I met Bob#'s, I would have thought that for someone on the spectrum and supposedly fascinated with numbers that(for example) the wide disparity in murder rates between Baltimore and Montana would provide an irresistible treasure trove of data and info.

[Beebs52]

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

When Chicago has a (2018) murder rate of 24 per 100,000-mainly by handguns and North Dakota has a (2017) murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000-I don't think AR 15 type weapons are the problem. I guarantee that ND has more AR-15 type weapons per capita than Chicago does.

Lack of father figures in the home-Number one cause of gun deaths.

The data disagrees with you. --Bob

Other more credible sites define mass shootings as 3 or more. But are massive ongoing non mass shooting murders less important?

[flockofseagulls104]

Gun legislation by the US Congress is specifically forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They shall not 'infringe' on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution also puts only 2 requirements for voting in this country. That the person should be at least 21 (later changed to 18 by the 26th amendment, which happens to be the correct way to change the Constitution if you don't like it), and that the person be a US CITIZEN.

Now what that says to me is that any single state can make any gun law they want, see what works and what doesn't and other states can decide for themselves what works best. But the Federal government cannot.

It also says to me that the Federal government can and should do everything it can to ensure that only US Citizens are able to vote. Not Illegal immigrants. Not those with green cards. Not those who overstay their visas. Not those who say they are without any proof. That is certainly laughable. And as a US citizen, I will be more than happy to present any form of ID required to vote, if I am confident it will keep people who do not have that right from casting a ballot.

If you do not agree with either of those scenarios, BWBJ, you and your minions are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution that permits the US Congress to make a law that infringes on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. You are also free to propose an amendment to allow anyone from anywhere to vote in US elections. I don't care one bit about your reasons, excuses or weaseling. That is our system of law. I know they didn't teach the Constitution at Acme, but they apparently specialized in weaselling. So now you can tell me in your best self righteous, bombastic pomposity how I know nothing about it. Start your weaselling. And trolls, do your stuff.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

Boarding a plane requires an ID. Getting a visa to go to any other country requires an ID. Buying alcohol or cigarettes requires an ID. Why shouldn't voting, now that Congress, through it's laziness and partisanship has allowed so many ILLEGAL ALIENS to enter and reside in our country? The Constitution requires a person to be a citizen and over 18. The Federal government is REQUIRED to abide by that and do everything it can to make sure those standards are upheld.

Same thing with the right to bear arms. The Federal Government is REQUIRED not to abridge that right. Weasels exist everywhere, even on the Supreme Court. Yes, they have established precedents that bypass the 2nd amendment. Yes, they have weaseled the original intent of that amendment. That doesn't mean we can now ignore the whole thing. There are many Constitutional Scholars who have researched the origin of the 2nd amendment who would argue very convincingly that YOUR interpretation is insane. And your interpretation is NOT law, even by precedent, according to this article. But weaseling is one of the main talents of politicians, and the Supreme Court is just as politicized as everything else in Washington. As Franklin said, they gave us a Republic (specifically not a democracy) if we can keep it. Ignoring the Constitution because it is inconvenient is one major way of losing it.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-17/ ... -amendment

But the definitive clarification did not emerge from the Supreme Court until 2008, in DC vs. Heller, when the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment does refer to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms and not just to a collective right of communities to defend themselves against tyranny.

[silverscreenselect]

When Chicago has a (2018) murder rate of 24 per 100,000-mainly by handguns and North Dakota has a (2017) murder rate of 1.3 per 100,000-I don't think AR 15 type weapons are the problem. I guarantee that ND has more AR-15 type weapons per capita than Chicago does.

Lack of father figures in the home-Number one cause of gun deaths.

Stats on gun deaths (note; this includes accidents and suicides)

Five highest states: Alaska, Montana, Alabama, Louisiana, Missouri

Five lowest states: Hawaii, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, Connecticut

And North Dakota has a higher death rate than does Illinois

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states ... -by-state/

One reason that more urbanized areas have higher murder rates is more opportunities. One reason that more rural areas have higher suicide rates is more isolation. Opposite sides of the same coin.

[Bob78164]

Gun legislation by the US Congress is specifically forbidden by the 2nd amendment of the Constitution. They shall not 'infringe' on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The Constitution also puts only 2 requirements for voting in this country. That the person should be at least 21 (later changed to 18 by the 26th amendment, which happens to be the correct way to change the Constitution if you don't like it), and that the person be a US CITIZEN.

Now what that says to me is that any single state can make any gun law they want, see what works and what doesn't and other states can decide for themselves what works best. But the Federal government cannot.

It also says to me that the Federal government can and should do everything it can to ensure that only US Citizens are able to vote. Not Illegal immigrants. Not those with green cards. Not those who overstay their visas. Not those who say they are without any proof. That is certainly laughable. And as a US citizen, I will be more than happy to present any form of ID required to vote, if I am confident it will keep people who do not have that right from casting a ballot.

If you do not agree with either of those scenarios, BWBJ, you and your minions are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution that permits the US Congress to make a law that infringes on the right of a citizen to keep and bear arms. You are also free to propose an amendment to allow anyone from anywhere to vote in US elections. I don't care one bit about your reasons, excuses or weaseling. That is our system of law. I know they didn't teach the Constitution at Acme, but they apparently specialized in weaselling. So now you can tell me in your best self righteous, bombastic pomposity how I know nothing about it. Start your weaselling. And trolls, do your stuff.

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

Boarding a plane requires an ID. Getting a visa to go to any other country requires an ID. Buying alcohol or cigarettes requires an ID. Why shouldn't voting, now that Congress, through it's laziness and partisanship has allowed so many ILLEGAL ALIENS to enter and reside in our country. The Constitution requires a person to be a citizen and over 18. The Federal government is REQUIRED to abide by that and do everything it can to make sure those standards are upheld.

Same thing with the right to bear arms. The Federal Government is REQUIRED not to abridge that right. Weasels exist everywhere, even on the Supreme Court. Yes, they have established precedents that bypass the 2nd amendment. Yes, they have weaseled the original intent of that amendment. That doesn't mean we can now ignore the whole thing. There are many Constitutional Scholars who have researched the origin of the 2nd amendment who would argue very convincingly that YOUR interpretation is insane. And your interpretation is NOT law, even by precedent, according to this article. But weaseling is one of the main talents of politicians, and the Supreme Court is just as politicized as everything else in Washington. As Franklin said, they gave us a Republic (specifically not a democracy) if we can keep it. Ignoring the Constitution because it is inconvenient is one major way of losing it.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-17/ ... -amendment

But the definitive clarification did not emerge from the Supreme Court until 2008, in DC vs. Heller, when the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment does refer to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms and not just to a collective right of communities to defend themselves against tyranny.

Got it. Your construction of the Constitution is what matters. And if the Supreme Court disagrees with you, then the Court must be wrong. Even though the very Constitution you claim to revere places that decision squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court.

And that "republic not a democracy" line is getting very old. You clearly don't understand what it means. It means that the Framers intended representative government rather than direct democracy (such as New England town meetings). It sure as hell didn't mean that a minority of the populace should be able to enduringly impose its views on a majority.

You're taking the position that showing an ID is an impermissible infringement of the right to purchase any firearm, no matter how powerful, but it's a perfectly fine limitation on the right to vote. You really should have gone to a school with a functioning civics class. --Bob

[flockofseagulls104]

The U.S. Constitution doesn't require citizens to possess any ID at all, yet you seem to be fine with anyone who wants to add that unwritten requirement to the right to vote. And it sounds like you think that laws disenfranchising felons are unconstitutional. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court also disagrees with your insane reading of the Second Amendment. (And that's leaving aside the introductory language about militias.) The right to bear arms doesn't include the right to possess assault weapons. Not even this Supreme Court thinks Congress is totally disabled from imposing at least some gun regulations. And it's the Supreme Court, not you, that's the final arbiter of what the Constitution says. If you don't like that, you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution to change that result. --Bob

Boarding a plane requires an ID. Getting a visa to go to any other country requires an ID. Buying alcohol or cigarettes requires an ID. Why shouldn't voting, now that Congress, through it's laziness and partisanship has allowed so many ILLEGAL ALIENS to enter and reside in our country. The Constitution requires a person to be a citizen and over 18. The Federal government is REQUIRED to abide by that and do everything it can to make sure those standards are upheld.

Same thing with the right to bear arms. The Federal Government is REQUIRED not to abridge that right. Weasels exist everywhere, even on the Supreme Court. Yes, they have established precedents that bypass the 2nd amendment. Yes, they have weaseled the original intent of that amendment. That doesn't mean we can now ignore the whole thing. There are many Constitutional Scholars who have researched the origin of the 2nd amendment who would argue very convincingly that YOUR interpretation is insane. And your interpretation is NOT law, even by precedent, according to this article. But weaseling is one of the main talents of politicians, and the Supreme Court is just as politicized as everything else in Washington. As Franklin said, they gave us a Republic (specifically not a democracy) if we can keep it. Ignoring the Constitution because it is inconvenient is one major way of losing it.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-11-17/ ... -amendment

But the definitive clarification did not emerge from the Supreme Court until 2008, in DC vs. Heller, when the court ruled 5 to 4 that the Second Amendment does refer to the right of individuals to keep and bear arms and not just to a collective right of communities to defend themselves against tyranny.

Got it. Your construction of the Constitution is what matters. And if the Supreme Court disagrees with you, then the Court must be wrong. Even though the very Constitution you claim to revere places that decision squarely in the hands of the Supreme Court.

And that "republic not a democracy" line is getting very old. You clearly don't understand what it means. It means that the Framers intended representative government rather than direct democracy (such as New England town meetings). It sure as hell didn't mean that a minority of the populace should be able to enduringly impose its views on a majority.

You're taking the position that showing an ID is an impermissible infringement of the right to purchase any firearm, no matter how powerful, but it's a perfectly fine limitation on the right to vote. You really should have gone to a school with a functioning civics class. --Bob

Yup, big word BJ, I knew it would come down to you telling me that I know nothing compared to your vast knowledge of everything there is to know.

[Bob78164]

Yup, big word BJ, I knew it would come down to you telling me that I know nothing compared to your vast knowledge of everything there is to know.

Which word is it that's giving you trouble? And are you seriously asking me to talk down to you? If not, then why make an issue of my vocabulary? Particularly on a site that's nominally dedicated to a game show based on knowledge.

And it's your own "reasoning" (and I use the word loosely) that demonstrates, far better than I ever could, the limits of your cognition. That, and your inability to refrain from name-calling as an alternative to actually trying to address the gaping holes in your reasoning. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Other than amendments protecting groups, who has defined proof of citizenship, for voting, other than states?

[flockofseagulls104]

Yup, big word BJ, I knew it would come down to you telling me that I know nothing compared to your vast knowledge of everything there is to know.

Which word is it that's giving you trouble? And are you seriously asking me to talk down to you? If not, then why make an issue of my vocabulary? Particularly on a site that's nominally dedicated to a game show based on knowledge.

And it's your own "reasoning" (and I use the word loosely) that demonstrates, far better than I ever could, the limits of your cognition. That, and your inability to refrain from name-calling as an alternative to actually trying to address the gaping holes in your reasoning. --Bob

Comprehension problem, again. Is it that you don't understand what I say, or you just don't read my posts before you react? Go back to some of the other posts I've made, and you will find out why I now call you Big Word BJ.

[flockofseagulls104]

And are you seriously asking me to talk down to you?

You tend to 'talk down' to everyone who might disagree with you.

[flockofseagulls104]

You're taking the position that showing an ID is an impermissible infringement of the right to purchase any firearm, no matter how powerful, but it's a perfectly fine limitation on the right to vote.

No I'm not. 2 different scenarios, Einstein.

[Beebs52]

Other than amendments protecting groups, who has defined proof of citizenship, for voting, other than states?

Specifically with regards to 14th amendment, etc Proof, like that

[Bob78164]

Other than amendments protecting groups, who has defined proof of citizenship, for voting, other than states?

Specifically with regards to 14th amendment, etc Proof, like that

I don't understand what you're asking. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Other than amendments protecting groups, who has defined proof of citizenship, for voting, other than states?

Specifically with regards to 14th amendment, etc Proof, like that

I don't understand what you're asking. --Bob

Your problem with proof of citizenship re voting.

[Bob78164]

Specifically with regards to 14th amendment, etc Proof, like that

I don't understand what you're asking. --Bob

Your problem with proof of citizenship re voting.

Beebs, I'm sorry, but I'm still not understanding. May I ask you to collect your thoughts into a full-sentence question? --Bob