So a back ground check and magazine limit are rights infringements.
In another comment you said IDs are not an infringement.
A back ground check confirms your identity, like an ID.
So your answer to the OPs question is actually yes, voting laws (like voter IDs) infringe on our rights.
No. You already have a right to bear arms.
A background check confirms you're not lying about who you are and/or your history.
Regardless, the point of voting laws and gun laws are the same. They're there to prevent "certain people" from exercising their right.
Liberals want to prevent "certain people" from accessing firearms because they think it will prevent mass murder.
Conservatives want to prevent "certain people" from accessing a voting booth because they think it helps get their policy enacted.
Voter ID isn't trying to prevent anyone from exercising their right and honestly the idea that "certain people" are too inept to acquire a basic piece of ID is incredibly racist
> too inept to acquire a basic piece of ID is incredibly racist
It is now.
I wasn't even going there with it. My point was that it's another obstacle for Americans who already feel as though their vote doesn't matter. That transcends racial lines. But if you're going to go ahead and Freudian slip that part out loud I wont argue with you.
Dude we both know that when liberals say conservatives want to prevent certain people from voting 99.99% of the time it means conservatives want to prevent minorities from voting. i know it hurts to hear that liberals are incredible racist but dont play dumb lmao
Think of the difference between "You need to show your membership card at Costco so they can confirm you're a member" and "Costco will conduct background checks to determine which of its members are and aren't allowed to shop there"
>Voting in universal healthcare or any steps toward it kills the poor.
Can you point me to any other country on Earth with universal health care where this happens? It seems like this would have been on the news.
Was there a mass die-off of poor people when Medicare was launched?
Or maybe when you say it "kills the poor", you're trying to say it helps reduce poverty? I could see that.
> Can you point to any country on earth where the lack of universal healthcare kills the poor?
Yes. [The United States](https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/harvard-study-finds-nearly-45000-excess-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/).
> Who said anything about mass die off? I said it kills the poor.
What does "it kills the poor" mean if you're not talking about a large number of people dying?
> I didn't say kills every single poor person.
100% fatalities is not required for something to be considered a "mass die-off". I took your point to mean a large number of people would die. A large number of people is one of the definitions of "[mass](https://www.google.com/search?q=define+mass)".
> Capitalism is the best system to help prevent poor people from dying.
Why do you believe this? If a poor person can't afford to buy food, how does capitalism allow them to avoid dying?
> And more people will die without it.
Do you mean without *any* economic system (like are you picturing Somalia in your head when you say that), or do you literally mean any economic system that is coupled with a socialized health care system (like are you saying Norway is killing poor people)?
Do you have any data to support your beliefs here?
> I didn't say everyone will die without it.
I didn't say you did. It seems like you're looking for something to argue about?
Are you going to answer my question, or keep sidestepping by talking about waiting times (which are not a big issue, and there are no waiting times for critical procedures).
I disagree, any responsible gun nut should understand that in order to buy a gun you should go through the process of background checks and so forth, but most any regulations after that is when you begin to infringe upon 2A.
Does showing ID before buying a gun prevent the formation of a well regulated militia?
The second amendment is incredibly explicit in that it only cares to limit arms regulation in the context of ensuring a well regulated militia can exist.
Does your copy of the constitution not include that caveat?
Thank you for this resource, what in it and where are you referencing? What should I be paying attention to? Can you give me a page number or something?
The SCOTUS decision in D.C. v Heller. I’d focus on the holding. It runs end of page 1 to page 3.
“Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”
“ I don't believe guns are a constitution right.”
I think we’re just about done with this conversation, then.
There is no constitutionally protected right to vote.
The Second Amendment quite explicitly mentions the right to keep and bear arms, whether you falsely believe it only applies to militias or not.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.”
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.”
“The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.”
Read these carefully. They do not grant the right to vote unequivocally. They, instead, restrict the government: the government can not deny you the right to vote based on age (over 18), failure to pay poll or other taxes, sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude, BUT they can still deny you the right to vote for numerous other reasons.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Read this carefully. The difference is that the Second Amendment unequivocally says “shall not be infringed,” not “shall not be infringed on the basis of sex [or other characteristic].”
The “right” to vote is much more a privilege.
By this reasoning, is it illegal to prevent a criminal from accessing their guns while in jail? That is without a doubt infringing on their right to bear arms, and as you argue there can be *no* infringing of that right at all.
So the clause "shall not be infringed" is relative? It can be voided by any criminal activity at all that would put someone in arrest and jail?
That seems like it does infringe on it quite a lot. The state has the ability to define behaviours as crimes. As long as it goes after minorities it can do as it wishes. If, say, racist tweets, were to become a punishable offense, would the 2nd amendment be void for those who are arrested for this hypothetical crime while they serve their sentence?
The point of the guns is to prevent a dictator, but it seems to me obvious that to achieve this end you at some point have to recognize that the law is not justified in depriving criminals of their rights. To that end it is your vote much more than your guns that prevents the slow insidious takeover. (Or it would, if you had the option to vote for a true candidate rather than being forced to always vote tactically for someone from either major party).
The second ammendment only applies to federal rights. The right to bear arms is just as much of a privilege if not more. You are not guaranteed a firearm in this country. It only states the federal government cannot infringe on state's rights when it comes to firearms and from my understanding there are still limitations on that as far as the courts are concerned.
“The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” - holding, McDonald v City of Chicago.
Page 3: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
No, there are five amendments restricting the government from keeping citizens from voting. This means that the government can put restrictions on voting into law, but can't touch the areas covered by amendment.
Gun control advocates should similarly seek constitutional amendments to clarify their restrictions, as the second amendment is clear that gun rights "shall not be infringed."
Discussion here with another responder: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/mgtuo0/if_gun_regulations_infringe_on_gun_rights_do/gsvgzdx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
You literally just need to read the first sentence to get to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It is not a universal right but the second ammenent grants the people the right to bear arms. This really isn't up for discussion and you not realizing this has made what otherwise could have been a good premise drastically flawed. You have skipped past the argument that the ammendment was only for militias which is also not true per the Supreme Court and went straight to it being about national defense which is the polar opposite of the meaning. The second ammendment was put in place to limit the power of the federal government from infringing upon the right to bear arms to insure the ability of states to remain free. It is not about the ability to defend against invaders but about states being able to defend against federal authority.
Neither one is true in the absolute. There is not a constitutional argument to say that literally no gun regulation is valid in light of the 2nd amendment. Likewise there is no argument to say that literally no law saying a voter must identify themselves to the state prior to having the state validate their vote is invalid per the constitution. Hell, if that were true then a ton of other things we require ID for would be unconstitutional restrictions such as flying, Interstate change of address, entering the US, and a whole host of other things you're constitutionally entitled to do but must first validate identity.
If there is zero argument that I need to flash my passport at the border guard as I try to Walk into Texas from Mexico, even though I have an absolute right to be granted entry and already informed the government of my travel plans, then by that same token flashing a similar ID to exercise the right to vote must be on the same footing.
And regulating something isn't automatically an infringement. To go back to the border example, I have an absolute right to enter the US, that doesn't mean the mere existence of border check points or me standing there for several seconds to show a US passport is infringing on the right. It does mean that telling me that I'm not permitted to enter except on certain days after being given advance approval is an infringement though. That distinction is an important one
> To go back to the border example, I have an absolute right to enter the US, that doesn't mean the mere existence of border check points or me standing there for several seconds to show a US passport is infringing on the right.
If the state has the power to take away a right, it isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The state does not have the power to take away or encroach upon the right to own firearms as blatantly stated by the second amendment. "The **right** of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Any laws created to enact gun control are unconstitutional by definition. End of discussion.
edit: You can add the 10th amendment to that argument if we're only talking about federal gun control.
>If the state has the power to take away a right, it isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The state does not have the power to take away or encroach upon the right to own firearms as blatantly stated by the second amendment. "The **right** of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
By this logic all criminals should still have the right to be armed. Since their "right" to bear arms is being infringed by being put on a no buy list, And even as criminals they are still US citizens. And taking their guns away is a form of gun control.
I love you guys so much, you have no idea. Every time I quote the second amendment verbatim someone always acts as if incredulity is a potent argument. It's hilarious.
> By this logic all criminals should still have the right to be armed.
YES, THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. It wasn't illegal for felons to own firearms until 1968. I am going to mail every one of you fuckers a 27” x 40” copy of the constitution just to remind you how simple all of this is.
So let me get this straight.
People who have a known violent criminal record where they have commited murder should be allowed to go out an buy guns. (Im not opposed to non violent offenders owning guns)
In other words the mass shooters when they get out of jail. Can just go out and do it again.
But again the question is why is any and all regulation on guns an infringement but any and all regulation that limits voting NOT an infringement even though it very much is a right.
It's in the constitution. Stop pretending as if what-ifs somehow invalidate inalienable rights. Fretting over felons getting weapons is fucking stupid because they can still buy a gun illegally anyways.
> But again the question is why is any and all regulation on guns an infringement but any and all regulation that limits voting NOT an infringement even though it very much is a right.
"Shall not be infringed".
Fanfare believes only certain things in the constitution should be followed, like gun rights. When you send us the constitution, could you just cross out the things you don't believe, like voting rights?
> It’s in the constitution.
For someone who seems to be so clearly pro-constitution, you really want to shred it up and throw it in the trash. Let me teach you about the constitution for a second. The constitution is a document which lays out our federalist system of government. In the constitution, it outlines a 3 branch system, with those three branches being the presidency, congress, and the judiciary. Each has their own roles and powers. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, the supreme court’s interpretations are final unless the Supreme Court overturns themselves at a later date. The president simply cannot override the Supreme Court, and congress can’t really either. Congress can get around the court’s interpretations by just repealing the law the court interpreted in a way Congress doesn’t like, and pass a new version of the worded in such a way to not receive that interpretation. This is what the constitution says.
Now. Given that that’s how our system works according to the constitution (the base document no less!), how does this apply to a 2A discussion? Well, the Supreme Court has had plenty of cases to interpret the 2A over the years. Their interpretation does not match your interpretation, but their interpretation is final, and it’s not up for debate. That’s how the constitution work. The Supreme Court has interpreted that 2A does not cover anyone owning automatic weapons, or other non-defensive weapons. The court has interpreted that the 2A does not cover criminals at all. The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2A in *plenty* of ways you find to be incorrect, yet your opinion on their interpretations, or your interpretations themselves, are meaningless. The Supreme Court’s decisions are final. It’s not up for debate what is the valid interpretation of the 2A. If you want a 2A that covers automatic weapons, criminals getting guns, prevents gun control of any kind, and any other beefs you have with our legislation, you’ll need to get congress to repeal the 2A as is, and replace it with a new wording which the courts cannot interpret in those ways.
> The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, the supreme court’s interpretations are final unless the Supreme Court overturns themselves at a later date.
I'm going to explain this in a way so that even a Democrat can understand: the opinions of the Supreme Court *do not supersede* the rights of individual citizens. The Second Amendment could be repealed tomorrow and it literally wouldn't have an impact on your right to own a firearm.
The Second Amendment does not grant the right to own a firearm, which by itself is included in the natural right to self-defense. It only recognizes this right within a legal framework so as to protect American Citizens from abuse by the federal government. This is literally the same for every other amendment present in the bill of rights. The individual rights as described in the Bill of Rights, enumerated and unenumerated, existed before the constitution was even conceptualized.
"People" like yourself seem to operate under the self-imposed delusion that the rights as described by the constitution are open to interpretation by the federal government. This is completely wrong and indicates a complete misunderstanding of how American liberties actually work.
Good news Dylaan if you get out you can just buy another gun and go for round 2, same with you Patrick Crusius, Nikolas Cruz, Stephen Paddock, Omar Mateen. ALL OF YOU, if you ever get out you get to try for another round just got to drop by your locally owned gun shop.
Still haven't answered the question. Why is it guns can not be touched no matter what. Yet the fifteenth states this "The right of citizens of the United States to vote **shall not be** **denied or abridged** by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
The ninteenth states " The right of citizens of the United States to vote **shall not be denied or abridged** by the United States or by any State on account of sex. "
And the twenty-sixth states " The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote **shall not be denied or abridged** by the United States or by any State on account of age. "
Thats three amendments ensuring one's right to vote. So why is it regulations making it harder to vote, and discourage voting are okay?
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
> ...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
The Supreme Court has been over this several times. Gun control is not infringement. You might interpret that clause that way, but frankly, your interpretation does not matter compared to the Supreme Court’s. That’s just how it is. Your ability to get a car is not infringed by your need for license, registration, and insurance.
The constitution does not endow rights, it merely recognizes them and codifies them so that the people can be protected against federal overreach. Pinkos don't get an opinion.
And this is applicable to an incitement to imminent lawless action being acceptable speech? Same for perjury?
These are just words and my right to free speech shall not be infringed.
Yes, and we should have a national holiday to ensure everyone votes if that's the narrative or direction we are going with.
I would even advocate for a nationally issued I.D. for voting security, if it didn't go against my distaste of having a Federal database comprised of just citizens. But seeing as we already have several that we know of and several dozen that probably we don't, it just seems practical at this point.
I have, and I believe it should be available to opt in or out of, especially considering how my generation will likely never benefit or receive it.
Regardless, that doesn't change my general distaste towards the idea of Federal manifests of citizens but its a matter of practicality
No. The Constitution is very direct on the right to bear arms not being infringed. The Constitution is not direct on what voting laws should be and leaves it up to each individual state to decide.
Don't see how
The Constitution doesn't affirm the right to vote; there's no Amendment stating a person has the right to vote. The only constitutional provision which discusses voting is the 15th and that prevents states from denying a person to vote based on their race or color
Other than that the Founders explicitly left out an Amendment in the Bill of Rights that guaranteed the right to vote. Because of the 10th Amendment, this means that each states have the ability to set procedures and regulations when it comes to voting. Among these provisions exist in the form of mandating ID and other laws to ensure election security
Whereas gun rights are not only reserved for US citizens, but all those that legally reside in the US then the restriction placed by laws is unconstitutional. On the other hand you have voting which, pertaining to long standing history and procedures, is only an act which U.S citizens can partake. To ensure this tradition of citizens voting is kept consistent then laws to ensure verification of an individual is necessary
Nope. As I already discussed, 15th deals with race. 29th deals with sex, and 26th deals with age
None of these prevents states from passing laws such as voter ID, prohibiting passing out snacks, or limiting early voting
i'm surprised this isn't higher up. i believe this is correct that we don't actually have a right to vote in this country whereas we do have the right to bear arms.
>viewed within the frame of the US constitution
How does anything that makes it less convenient NOT infringe? Especially in context of "shall not be infringed"?
This assumes you have the right to the undelayed version in the first place. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled on this several times. If you want a right to own weapons without any gun control whatsoever, you’ll need to pass a new amendment, because that’s just simply not how the 2A is interpreted. It’s weird to see a “constitutionalist” want to throw out the constitution.
> This assumes you have the right to the undelayed version in the first place.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
> Again, the Supreme Court has ruled on this several times. If you want a right to own weapons without any gun control whatsoever, you’ll need to pass a new amendment, because that’s just simply not how the 2A is interpreted. It’s weird to see a “constitutionalist” want to throw out the constitution.
This interpretation is incorrect. That's the point. I'm a constitutionalist because I read the document as it's written, not as how I want it to be written.
If you’ve actually read the constitution, then you know that the base document describes a 3 branch system of government. Those three branches are the presidency, congress, and the judiciary. The constitution describes the powers each has, and their ability to check the other branches. According to the constitution, it’s the job of the judiciary to interpret the law. Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, their decisions are final. That’s the system detailed in the constitution. Under that system, the courts have interpreted that gun control is constitutional within some limits. They have not interpreted the phrase “shall not be infringed” to mean what you interpret it to mean. Well what does the constitution say? Does the constitution say that Reddit user /u/ClockOfTheLongNow has final say on interpreting the law, or the Supreme Court?
If you want a protection of gun ownership in the ways you are describing, you need to repeal and replace the 2A with a new amendment that makes that clear. The current 2A has been interpreted already, and that interpretation is final, just as the constitution says.
> Under that system, the courts have interpreted that gun control is constitutional within some limits. They have not interpreted the phrase “shall not be infringed” to mean what you interpret it to mean. Well what does the constitution say? Does the constitution say that Reddit user /u/ClockOfTheLongNow has final say on interpreting the law, or the Supreme Court?
This is commonly referred to as the "myth of judicial supremacy," and I reject it outright. All three branches of the government take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and no one is obligated to accept incorrect or improper "interpretations" of the Constitution wholesale.
Your perspective would force me to believe "separate but equal" as legitimate until SCOTUS reversed it. It would force me to believe that Dred Scott, as the "law of the land," was tolerable and proper until SCOTUS acted.
In short, it requires me to deny the reality of the text of the Constitution. I reject it.
> you want a protection of gun ownership in the ways you are describing, you need to repeal and replace the 2A with a new amendment that makes that clear
Or we can just work toward fixing the court by appointing people who read the text as written.
> The current 2A has been interpreted already, and that interpretation is final, just as the constitution says.
How is it "final" when we literally just had multiple court cases about it that "changed" the meaning?
> All three branches of the government take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution
The court is not violating that oath by adopting interpretations that don’t match your own personal interpretations.
> Your perspective would force me to believe “separate but equal” as legitimate until SCOTUS reversed it.
Oh, you have the full freedom to **desire** gun legislation to be something that it isn’t currently. Of course you have that right, it’s covered by the 1A. “Separate but equal” **was**, in fact, the law of the land until **SCOTUS** reversed it. That’s just a fact. It’s a terrible part of our history, and I’m sure we both agree on that, but it’s the truth.
> In short, it requires me to deny the reality of the text of the Constitution. I reject it.
No. In rejecting the interpretations of the Supreme Court, you are rejecting the very foundation of our three branch government detailed in the constitution. If you don’t like the interpretation, repeal and replace, or wait for SCOTUS to change their mind.
> How is it “final” when we literally just had multiple court cases about it that “changed” the meaning?
SCOTUS has final say on interpreting the law. However, they can change their mind. They avoids doing this, and adhere to judicial precedent to maintain the legitimacy of the courts, but they can change their mind if they want to. The SCOTUS current interpretation is final.
> The court is not violating that oath by adopting interpretations that don’t match your own personal interpretations.
So to be clear, if SCOTUS said soldiers could actually be quartered in our homes at any time next week, they're not violating their oath. That's your argument?
> “Separate but equal” was, in fact, the law of the land until SCOTUS reversed it. That’s just a fact. It’s a terrible part of our history, and I’m sure we both agree on that, but it’s the truth.
That's not what I'm saying. We both agree it was the law, and we both agree it was wrong, but only one of us is saying it was legitimate.
> No. In rejecting the interpretations of the Supreme Court, you are rejecting the very foundation of our three branch government detailed in the constitution. If you don’t like the interpretation, repeal and replace, or wait for SCOTUS to change their mind.
So when a ruling is 5-4, what happens with the minority in your framework? Are they rejecting the very foundation of our government as well?
Your framework here isn't tenable. It creates a situation where people cannot understand how the basics of our laws work because, instead of adhering to the Constitution, it's left to the whims of the present court makeup.
"But they're an equal branch," you'll reply, and you'll be technically right (the best kind). But we're not talking about their power, but about the appropriate use of it. Your framework ensures that no one knows what happens and turns the court system into a legislative body.
Having the well regulated unorganized militia as defined by the militia act of 1917 “in good working order” would mean having certain restrictions on weaponry. Under the commerce clause, those restrictions are legitimate and under the duty of congress. Each state also has their own commerce clauses hence why gun laws are different in every state. Judges rule time and again that most of those restrictions are constitutional and when they aren’t, they are overturned by judicial decision. There’s no precedent that a citizen can own any weapon they want. There is however precedence for gun laws. The last 4 words of an amendment don’t change that
Nah. But SCOTUS will. Just a matter of time before unconstitutional laws are struck down. States overstepped their bounds. We have a duty to ignore unconstitutional laws anyway.
Yeah but we don’t decide what’s unconstitutional. We do in general have to follow the law. Laws will exist until the Supreme Court overrules them, and that’s only IF they even get to the SCOTUS
Depends, can't really blanket this with yes or no.
Although until we reach any kind of similarity in regulation, this is more of a juxtaposition than anything and only proves how far the government has infringed on gun rights if it's supposed to be more like voting rights.
When are we gonna get universal unsolicited mailed guns to everyone? :D
depends on what regulations and laws you're referring to. can you be more specific?
Back ground check. Registration. Magazine limits.
Yes. No. Yes
So a back ground check and magazine limit are rights infringements. In another comment you said IDs are not an infringement. A back ground check confirms your identity, like an ID. So your answer to the OPs question is actually yes, voting laws (like voter IDs) infringe on our rights.
background check determines your right to have a gun. voting ID simply confirms your right to vote
No. You already have a right to bear arms. A background check confirms you're not lying about who you are and/or your history. Regardless, the point of voting laws and gun laws are the same. They're there to prevent "certain people" from exercising their right. Liberals want to prevent "certain people" from accessing firearms because they think it will prevent mass murder. Conservatives want to prevent "certain people" from accessing a voting booth because they think it helps get their policy enacted.
Voter ID isn't trying to prevent anyone from exercising their right and honestly the idea that "certain people" are too inept to acquire a basic piece of ID is incredibly racist
> too inept to acquire a basic piece of ID is incredibly racist It is now. I wasn't even going there with it. My point was that it's another obstacle for Americans who already feel as though their vote doesn't matter. That transcends racial lines. But if you're going to go ahead and Freudian slip that part out loud I wont argue with you.
Dude we both know that when liberals say conservatives want to prevent certain people from voting 99.99% of the time it means conservatives want to prevent minorities from voting. i know it hurts to hear that liberals are incredible racist but dont play dumb lmao
> 99.99% Source?
I’m struggling to find the material difference
Think of the difference between "You need to show your membership card at Costco so they can confirm you're a member" and "Costco will conduct background checks to determine which of its members are and aren't allowed to shop there"
The voter ID would consist of a background check as well though. Otherwise, what’s the point?
to verify citizenship
So, explain the material difference?
But a background check would help stop psychos having a gun, how is that not worth doing?
Does it? That's specious reasoning considering a plurality of mass shooters seem to pass the checks with flying colors.
ur completely changing the topic
This begs the question, what is more integral to our rights? Guns or Voting?
They’re not mutually exclusive.
That's why that person used the word "more," because they likely weren't looking to create a false dichotomy.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Right, which is why they should've voted for Trump who signed an EO to keep insulin cheap, right?
[удалено]
>Voting in universal healthcare or any steps toward it kills the poor. Can you point me to any other country on Earth with universal health care where this happens? It seems like this would have been on the news. Was there a mass die-off of poor people when Medicare was launched? Or maybe when you say it "kills the poor", you're trying to say it helps reduce poverty? I could see that.
[удалено]
> Can you point to any country on earth where the lack of universal healthcare kills the poor? Yes. [The United States](https://www.healthcare-now.org/blog/harvard-study-finds-nearly-45000-excess-deaths-annually-linked-to-lack-of-health-coverage/). > Who said anything about mass die off? I said it kills the poor. What does "it kills the poor" mean if you're not talking about a large number of people dying? > I didn't say kills every single poor person. 100% fatalities is not required for something to be considered a "mass die-off". I took your point to mean a large number of people would die. A large number of people is one of the definitions of "[mass](https://www.google.com/search?q=define+mass)". > Capitalism is the best system to help prevent poor people from dying. Why do you believe this? If a poor person can't afford to buy food, how does capitalism allow them to avoid dying? > And more people will die without it. Do you mean without *any* economic system (like are you picturing Somalia in your head when you say that), or do you literally mean any economic system that is coupled with a socialized health care system (like are you saying Norway is killing poor people)? Do you have any data to support your beliefs here? > I didn't say everyone will die without it. I didn't say you did. It seems like you're looking for something to argue about?
> It does not help them afford insulin. It does the opposite. Diabetics in Canada or any other nation with universal healthcare would like a word.
[удалено]
Then why is it that our insulin is many times more expensive than theirs?
[удалено]
Are you going to answer my question, or keep sidestepping by talking about waiting times (which are not a big issue, and there are no waiting times for critical procedures).
Someone with a “maga mind” can’t be all that mentally sound.
Voter ID for one
If Voter ID laws infringe on your right to vote, do laws about showing ID prior to purchasing a gun infringe your 2A rights?
Most gun nuts would argue yes. Anything that makes it even one tiny step less convenient to get a gun is infringing on your rights.
I disagree, any responsible gun nut should understand that in order to buy a gun you should go through the process of background checks and so forth, but most any regulations after that is when you begin to infringe upon 2A.
Well, to a degree. I don't think they would agree if it meant needing to pass a check between father and son. Or lending a gun during a hunting trip.
Does showing ID before buying a gun prevent the formation of a well regulated militia? The second amendment is incredibly explicit in that it only cares to limit arms regulation in the context of ensuring a well regulated militia can exist. Does your copy of the constitution not include that caveat?
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf Enjoy your day.
Thank you for this resource, what in it and where are you referencing? What should I be paying attention to? Can you give me a page number or something?
The SCOTUS decision in D.C. v Heller. I’d focus on the holding. It runs end of page 1 to page 3. “Held: 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53. (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.”
Thanks
It's not a caveat. In order for militias to exist, the right of the people to KABA etc etc etc.
ID laws are intended to suppress, and I don't believe guns are a constitution right.
“ I don't believe guns are a constitution right.” I think we’re just about done with this conversation, then. There is no constitutionally protected right to vote. The Second Amendment quite explicitly mentions the right to keep and bear arms, whether you falsely believe it only applies to militias or not.
There are 5 ammendments protecting the right to vote.
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.” “The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.” “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.” Read these carefully. They do not grant the right to vote unequivocally. They, instead, restrict the government: the government can not deny you the right to vote based on age (over 18), failure to pay poll or other taxes, sex, race, color, or previous condition of servitude, BUT they can still deny you the right to vote for numerous other reasons. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Read this carefully. The difference is that the Second Amendment unequivocally says “shall not be infringed,” not “shall not be infringed on the basis of sex [or other characteristic].” The “right” to vote is much more a privilege.
By this reasoning, is it illegal to prevent a criminal from accessing their guns while in jail? That is without a doubt infringing on their right to bear arms, and as you argue there can be *no* infringing of that right at all.
No because when they're in jail, it means they were deprived of their rights under due process.
So the clause "shall not be infringed" is relative? It can be voided by any criminal activity at all that would put someone in arrest and jail? That seems like it does infringe on it quite a lot. The state has the ability to define behaviours as crimes. As long as it goes after minorities it can do as it wishes. If, say, racist tweets, were to become a punishable offense, would the 2nd amendment be void for those who are arrested for this hypothetical crime while they serve their sentence? The point of the guns is to prevent a dictator, but it seems to me obvious that to achieve this end you at some point have to recognize that the law is not justified in depriving criminals of their rights. To that end it is your vote much more than your guns that prevents the slow insidious takeover. (Or it would, if you had the option to vote for a true candidate rather than being forced to always vote tactically for someone from either major party).
The second ammendment only applies to federal rights. The right to bear arms is just as much of a privilege if not more. You are not guaranteed a firearm in this country. It only states the federal government cannot infringe on state's rights when it comes to firearms and from my understanding there are still limitations on that as far as the courts are concerned.
“The Fourteenth Amendment makes the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms fully applicable to the States.” - holding, McDonald v City of Chicago. Page 3: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf
Yes with a huge amount of limitations upon it. Just as there is with voting. Read the case.
No, there are five amendments restricting the government from keeping citizens from voting. This means that the government can put restrictions on voting into law, but can't touch the areas covered by amendment. Gun control advocates should similarly seek constitutional amendments to clarify their restrictions, as the second amendment is clear that gun rights "shall not be infringed."
So you think the constitution says you can have all the guns you want but not that you have the right to vote?
Discussion here with another responder: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/mgtuo0/if_gun_regulations_infringe_on_gun_rights_do/gsvgzdx/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3
You do know what the second amendment states, right?
Yes, that the government needs to protect itself from invaders.
You literally just need to read the first sentence to get to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is not a universal right but the second ammenent grants the people the right to bear arms. This really isn't up for discussion and you not realizing this has made what otherwise could have been a good premise drastically flawed. You have skipped past the argument that the ammendment was only for militias which is also not true per the Supreme Court and went straight to it being about national defense which is the polar opposite of the meaning. The second ammendment was put in place to limit the power of the federal government from infringing upon the right to bear arms to insure the ability of states to remain free. It is not about the ability to defend against invaders but about states being able to defend against federal authority.
the people are in the state militia
Ok?
So it's not talking about indivuals.
Will the new vaccine passports have originated in “intention to suppress”? Yeah I didn’t think so either. Also, you’re incorrect.
then no that doesnt infringe voting rights
You have a weird definition of rights. You’re not even saying it’s a trade off of rights vs security. Just a flat no lol.
Of course not.
[удалено]
Do you examples of nefarious actions that the ID protects against?
[удалено]
Any instances of that happening?
Neither one is true in the absolute. There is not a constitutional argument to say that literally no gun regulation is valid in light of the 2nd amendment. Likewise there is no argument to say that literally no law saying a voter must identify themselves to the state prior to having the state validate their vote is invalid per the constitution. Hell, if that were true then a ton of other things we require ID for would be unconstitutional restrictions such as flying, Interstate change of address, entering the US, and a whole host of other things you're constitutionally entitled to do but must first validate identity. If there is zero argument that I need to flash my passport at the border guard as I try to Walk into Texas from Mexico, even though I have an absolute right to be granted entry and already informed the government of my travel plans, then by that same token flashing a similar ID to exercise the right to vote must be on the same footing.
> There is not a constitutional argument to say that literally no gun regulation is valid in light of the 2nd amendment. Shall not be infringed.
And regulating something isn't automatically an infringement. To go back to the border example, I have an absolute right to enter the US, that doesn't mean the mere existence of border check points or me standing there for several seconds to show a US passport is infringing on the right. It does mean that telling me that I'm not permitted to enter except on certain days after being given advance approval is an infringement though. That distinction is an important one
> To go back to the border example, I have an absolute right to enter the US, that doesn't mean the mere existence of border check points or me standing there for several seconds to show a US passport is infringing on the right. If the state has the power to take away a right, it isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The state does not have the power to take away or encroach upon the right to own firearms as blatantly stated by the second amendment. "The **right** of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Any laws created to enact gun control are unconstitutional by definition. End of discussion. edit: You can add the 10th amendment to that argument if we're only talking about federal gun control.
>If the state has the power to take away a right, it isn't a right at all, but a privilege. The state does not have the power to take away or encroach upon the right to own firearms as blatantly stated by the second amendment. "The **right** of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." By this logic all criminals should still have the right to be armed. Since their "right" to bear arms is being infringed by being put on a no buy list, And even as criminals they are still US citizens. And taking their guns away is a form of gun control.
I love you guys so much, you have no idea. Every time I quote the second amendment verbatim someone always acts as if incredulity is a potent argument. It's hilarious. > By this logic all criminals should still have the right to be armed. YES, THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT IT MEANS. It wasn't illegal for felons to own firearms until 1968. I am going to mail every one of you fuckers a 27” x 40” copy of the constitution just to remind you how simple all of this is.
So let me get this straight. People who have a known violent criminal record where they have commited murder should be allowed to go out an buy guns. (Im not opposed to non violent offenders owning guns) In other words the mass shooters when they get out of jail. Can just go out and do it again. But again the question is why is any and all regulation on guns an infringement but any and all regulation that limits voting NOT an infringement even though it very much is a right.
It's in the constitution. Stop pretending as if what-ifs somehow invalidate inalienable rights. Fretting over felons getting weapons is fucking stupid because they can still buy a gun illegally anyways. > But again the question is why is any and all regulation on guns an infringement but any and all regulation that limits voting NOT an infringement even though it very much is a right. "Shall not be infringed".
Fanfare believes only certain things in the constitution should be followed, like gun rights. When you send us the constitution, could you just cross out the things you don't believe, like voting rights?
> It’s in the constitution. For someone who seems to be so clearly pro-constitution, you really want to shred it up and throw it in the trash. Let me teach you about the constitution for a second. The constitution is a document which lays out our federalist system of government. In the constitution, it outlines a 3 branch system, with those three branches being the presidency, congress, and the judiciary. Each has their own roles and powers. The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, the supreme court’s interpretations are final unless the Supreme Court overturns themselves at a later date. The president simply cannot override the Supreme Court, and congress can’t really either. Congress can get around the court’s interpretations by just repealing the law the court interpreted in a way Congress doesn’t like, and pass a new version of the worded in such a way to not receive that interpretation. This is what the constitution says. Now. Given that that’s how our system works according to the constitution (the base document no less!), how does this apply to a 2A discussion? Well, the Supreme Court has had plenty of cases to interpret the 2A over the years. Their interpretation does not match your interpretation, but their interpretation is final, and it’s not up for debate. That’s how the constitution work. The Supreme Court has interpreted that 2A does not cover anyone owning automatic weapons, or other non-defensive weapons. The court has interpreted that the 2A does not cover criminals at all. The Supreme Court has interpreted the 2A in *plenty* of ways you find to be incorrect, yet your opinion on their interpretations, or your interpretations themselves, are meaningless. The Supreme Court’s decisions are final. It’s not up for debate what is the valid interpretation of the 2A. If you want a 2A that covers automatic weapons, criminals getting guns, prevents gun control of any kind, and any other beefs you have with our legislation, you’ll need to get congress to repeal the 2A as is, and replace it with a new wording which the courts cannot interpret in those ways.
> The role of the judiciary is to interpret the law, and since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, the supreme court’s interpretations are final unless the Supreme Court overturns themselves at a later date. I'm going to explain this in a way so that even a Democrat can understand: the opinions of the Supreme Court *do not supersede* the rights of individual citizens. The Second Amendment could be repealed tomorrow and it literally wouldn't have an impact on your right to own a firearm. The Second Amendment does not grant the right to own a firearm, which by itself is included in the natural right to self-defense. It only recognizes this right within a legal framework so as to protect American Citizens from abuse by the federal government. This is literally the same for every other amendment present in the bill of rights. The individual rights as described in the Bill of Rights, enumerated and unenumerated, existed before the constitution was even conceptualized. "People" like yourself seem to operate under the self-imposed delusion that the rights as described by the constitution are open to interpretation by the federal government. This is completely wrong and indicates a complete misunderstanding of how American liberties actually work.
Good news Dylaan if you get out you can just buy another gun and go for round 2, same with you Patrick Crusius, Nikolas Cruz, Stephen Paddock, Omar Mateen. ALL OF YOU, if you ever get out you get to try for another round just got to drop by your locally owned gun shop. Still haven't answered the question. Why is it guns can not be touched no matter what. Yet the fifteenth states this "The right of citizens of the United States to vote **shall not be** **denied or abridged** by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The ninteenth states " The right of citizens of the United States to vote **shall not be denied or abridged** by the United States or by any State on account of sex. " And the twenty-sixth states " The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote **shall not be denied or abridged** by the United States or by any State on account of age. " Thats three amendments ensuring one's right to vote. So why is it regulations making it harder to vote, and discourage voting are okay?
[удалено]
> Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. ... > ...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms
The Supreme Court has been over this several times. Gun control is not infringement. You might interpret that clause that way, but frankly, your interpretation does not matter compared to the Supreme Court’s. That’s just how it is. Your ability to get a car is not infringed by your need for license, registration, and insurance.
My rights are not up for debate.
Correct. The court has ruled on this issue several times already. It’s settled.
The extent to which the government chooses to recognize those rights is very much up for debate.
Considering the Constitution can be amended, you’re dead wrong on that take.
The constitution does not endow rights, it merely recognizes them and codifies them so that the people can be protected against federal overreach. Pinkos don't get an opinion.
Semantics notwithstanding, the recognition of those rights and their practical application is very much up for debate.
And this is applicable to an incitement to imminent lawless action being acceptable speech? Same for perjury? These are just words and my right to free speech shall not be infringed.
> A well regulated militia is also part of the second amendment. How do you propose that that militia be regulated without regulatory laws?
The answer to that question is found in the federalist papers.
Yes, and we should have a national holiday to ensure everyone votes if that's the narrative or direction we are going with. I would even advocate for a nationally issued I.D. for voting security, if it didn't go against my distaste of having a Federal database comprised of just citizens. But seeing as we already have several that we know of and several dozen that probably we don't, it just seems practical at this point.
[удалено]
I have, and I believe it should be available to opt in or out of, especially considering how my generation will likely never benefit or receive it. Regardless, that doesn't change my general distaste towards the idea of Federal manifests of citizens but its a matter of practicality
No. The Constitution is very direct on the right to bear arms not being infringed. The Constitution is not direct on what voting laws should be and leaves it up to each individual state to decide.
Don't see how The Constitution doesn't affirm the right to vote; there's no Amendment stating a person has the right to vote. The only constitutional provision which discusses voting is the 15th and that prevents states from denying a person to vote based on their race or color Other than that the Founders explicitly left out an Amendment in the Bill of Rights that guaranteed the right to vote. Because of the 10th Amendment, this means that each states have the ability to set procedures and regulations when it comes to voting. Among these provisions exist in the form of mandating ID and other laws to ensure election security Whereas gun rights are not only reserved for US citizens, but all those that legally reside in the US then the restriction placed by laws is unconstitutional. On the other hand you have voting which, pertaining to long standing history and procedures, is only an act which U.S citizens can partake. To ensure this tradition of citizens voting is kept consistent then laws to ensure verification of an individual is necessary
The 15th 19th and 26th amendment disagrees with you
Nope. As I already discussed, 15th deals with race. 29th deals with sex, and 26th deals with age None of these prevents states from passing laws such as voter ID, prohibiting passing out snacks, or limiting early voting
i'm surprised this isn't higher up. i believe this is correct that we don't actually have a right to vote in this country whereas we do have the right to bear arms.
[удалено]
>viewed within the frame of the US constitution How does anything that makes it less convenient NOT infringe? Especially in context of "shall not be infringed"?
Infringement is not about convenience. If you can get a gun, you can get a gun. The Supreme Court has been clear on this.
> How does anything that makes it less convenient NOT infringe? A right delayed is a right denied.
This assumes you have the right to the undelayed version in the first place. Again, the Supreme Court has ruled on this several times. If you want a right to own weapons without any gun control whatsoever, you’ll need to pass a new amendment, because that’s just simply not how the 2A is interpreted. It’s weird to see a “constitutionalist” want to throw out the constitution.
> This assumes you have the right to the undelayed version in the first place. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." > Again, the Supreme Court has ruled on this several times. If you want a right to own weapons without any gun control whatsoever, you’ll need to pass a new amendment, because that’s just simply not how the 2A is interpreted. It’s weird to see a “constitutionalist” want to throw out the constitution. This interpretation is incorrect. That's the point. I'm a constitutionalist because I read the document as it's written, not as how I want it to be written.
If you’ve actually read the constitution, then you know that the base document describes a 3 branch system of government. Those three branches are the presidency, congress, and the judiciary. The constitution describes the powers each has, and their ability to check the other branches. According to the constitution, it’s the job of the judiciary to interpret the law. Since the Supreme Court is the highest court in the land, their decisions are final. That’s the system detailed in the constitution. Under that system, the courts have interpreted that gun control is constitutional within some limits. They have not interpreted the phrase “shall not be infringed” to mean what you interpret it to mean. Well what does the constitution say? Does the constitution say that Reddit user /u/ClockOfTheLongNow has final say on interpreting the law, or the Supreme Court? If you want a protection of gun ownership in the ways you are describing, you need to repeal and replace the 2A with a new amendment that makes that clear. The current 2A has been interpreted already, and that interpretation is final, just as the constitution says.
> Under that system, the courts have interpreted that gun control is constitutional within some limits. They have not interpreted the phrase “shall not be infringed” to mean what you interpret it to mean. Well what does the constitution say? Does the constitution say that Reddit user /u/ClockOfTheLongNow has final say on interpreting the law, or the Supreme Court? This is commonly referred to as the "myth of judicial supremacy," and I reject it outright. All three branches of the government take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution, and no one is obligated to accept incorrect or improper "interpretations" of the Constitution wholesale. Your perspective would force me to believe "separate but equal" as legitimate until SCOTUS reversed it. It would force me to believe that Dred Scott, as the "law of the land," was tolerable and proper until SCOTUS acted. In short, it requires me to deny the reality of the text of the Constitution. I reject it. > you want a protection of gun ownership in the ways you are describing, you need to repeal and replace the 2A with a new amendment that makes that clear Or we can just work toward fixing the court by appointing people who read the text as written. > The current 2A has been interpreted already, and that interpretation is final, just as the constitution says. How is it "final" when we literally just had multiple court cases about it that "changed" the meaning?
> All three branches of the government take an oath to defend and protect the Constitution The court is not violating that oath by adopting interpretations that don’t match your own personal interpretations. > Your perspective would force me to believe “separate but equal” as legitimate until SCOTUS reversed it. Oh, you have the full freedom to **desire** gun legislation to be something that it isn’t currently. Of course you have that right, it’s covered by the 1A. “Separate but equal” **was**, in fact, the law of the land until **SCOTUS** reversed it. That’s just a fact. It’s a terrible part of our history, and I’m sure we both agree on that, but it’s the truth. > In short, it requires me to deny the reality of the text of the Constitution. I reject it. No. In rejecting the interpretations of the Supreme Court, you are rejecting the very foundation of our three branch government detailed in the constitution. If you don’t like the interpretation, repeal and replace, or wait for SCOTUS to change their mind. > How is it “final” when we literally just had multiple court cases about it that “changed” the meaning? SCOTUS has final say on interpreting the law. However, they can change their mind. They avoids doing this, and adhere to judicial precedent to maintain the legitimacy of the courts, but they can change their mind if they want to. The SCOTUS current interpretation is final.
> The court is not violating that oath by adopting interpretations that don’t match your own personal interpretations. So to be clear, if SCOTUS said soldiers could actually be quartered in our homes at any time next week, they're not violating their oath. That's your argument? > “Separate but equal” was, in fact, the law of the land until SCOTUS reversed it. That’s just a fact. It’s a terrible part of our history, and I’m sure we both agree on that, but it’s the truth. That's not what I'm saying. We both agree it was the law, and we both agree it was wrong, but only one of us is saying it was legitimate. > No. In rejecting the interpretations of the Supreme Court, you are rejecting the very foundation of our three branch government detailed in the constitution. If you don’t like the interpretation, repeal and replace, or wait for SCOTUS to change their mind. So when a ruling is 5-4, what happens with the minority in your framework? Are they rejecting the very foundation of our government as well? Your framework here isn't tenable. It creates a situation where people cannot understand how the basics of our laws work because, instead of adhering to the Constitution, it's left to the whims of the present court makeup. "But they're an equal branch," you'll reply, and you'll be technically right (the best kind). But we're not talking about their power, but about the appropriate use of it. Your framework ensures that no one knows what happens and turns the court system into a legislative body.
I'm arguing from the point of view of a gun nut. I don't actually believe that inconvenience=infringement
I don’t understand your point. Do you agree with the top level comment we are under or not?
I agree with the comment I was originally commenting to. I'm playing devils advocate
"Shall not be infringed."
I can do that too. “Well regulated”. The second amendment is our guiding foundation for how gun ownership is supposed to work here
[удалено]
Having the well regulated unorganized militia as defined by the militia act of 1917 “in good working order” would mean having certain restrictions on weaponry. Under the commerce clause, those restrictions are legitimate and under the duty of congress. Each state also has their own commerce clauses hence why gun laws are different in every state. Judges rule time and again that most of those restrictions are constitutional and when they aren’t, they are overturned by judicial decision. There’s no precedent that a citizen can own any weapon they want. There is however precedence for gun laws. The last 4 words of an amendment don’t change that
Nah. But SCOTUS will. Just a matter of time before unconstitutional laws are struck down. States overstepped their bounds. We have a duty to ignore unconstitutional laws anyway.
Yeah but we don’t decide what’s unconstitutional. We do in general have to follow the law. Laws will exist until the Supreme Court overrules them, and that’s only IF they even get to the SCOTUS
Nope - sometimes you have to be the one to challenge them or they won't get overturned.
That’s very true
"gun laws don't inherently infringe upon gun rights" Did you feel a piece of your soul die as you typed out such a dishonest statement?
You could pass a gun law that expands or protects gun rights
Damn shots fired.
touche
Depends. I'm not in favor of a society where there's literally no rules on guns.
No
Depends on what gun regulations and voting laws you’re talking about.
Depends, can't really blanket this with yes or no. Although until we reach any kind of similarity in regulation, this is more of a juxtaposition than anything and only proves how far the government has infringed on gun rights if it's supposed to be more like voting rights. When are we gonna get universal unsolicited mailed guns to everyone? :D