Voter ID vs Gun ID
I have heard so much angst in the media lately between the election in November and the tragic killing in Connecticut in December. During the election, the arguments centered around voter ID and how just showing a state supplied ID was an outright infringement on the voting rights of the poor. In December, the arguments were centered around the banning of firearms and gun ownership rights.
Now, let me say outright that I am both a voter and a collector of firearms. I am rather surprised at the general media for the blatantly unequal treatment of both issues with their refusal to examine either one in depth. Let me share with you a few facts and thoughts. First let's start with a comparison between both issues.
Voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, our Constitution, as a basic founding block of a representative government. Our Constitution's 15th Amendment clearly 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Gun ownership is also a right guaranteed by the Constitution, our Constitution, as a basic founding block of maintaining a representative government vice a oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship form of tyranny. Our Constitution's 2nd Amendment clearly states, "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."
So in comparison, both rights are guaranteed by the same documents at the Federal level and are both essential founding blocks of our government. Both rights are provided ONLY to the adult citizens of legal age. How is it that some people see no problem with requiring an ID, state permission, expensive training, or outright prohibition with one but not the other. How can we as a people so easily dismiss one right while railing against a tempest on the other? Where is the ACLU on this? Where is the media coverage on the inequality of treatment for Constitutional rights?
While our Constitution provides each of us with the right to vote, the Founding Fathers went that extra mile to emphatically state, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice they said "...the people." That's us. That's your right and mine as citizens. Any requirement by the government could be viewed as an infringement on gun ownership in light of this specific phrase.
When considering the issue of voter ID, I've listened to many people argue that the mere requirement to show proof of who you in order to vote is an unconstitutional infringement on their right to vote! But consider that the same people complaining about voter ID is an infringement are themselves calling for additional infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights in the form of proof of ID, background checks, and outright prohibition of any 2nd Amendment right. How is it that infringement is okay for one right but not okay for the other?
I would be willing to wager that any legal gun owner cherishes their right to vote just as much as their right to own their gun. How can we as a citizenship selectively choose one right over another at the same time?
COB
Now, let me say outright that I am both a voter and a collector of firearms. I am rather surprised at the general media for the blatantly unequal treatment of both issues with their refusal to examine either one in depth. Let me share with you a few facts and thoughts. First let's start with a comparison between both issues.
Voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, our Constitution, as a basic founding block of a representative government. Our Constitution's 15th Amendment clearly 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Gun ownership is also a right guaranteed by the Constitution, our Constitution, as a basic founding block of maintaining a representative government vice a oligarchy, monarchy or dictatorship form of tyranny. Our Constitution's 2nd Amendment clearly states, "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."
So in comparison, both rights are guaranteed by the same documents at the Federal level and are both essential founding blocks of our government. Both rights are provided ONLY to the adult citizens of legal age. How is it that some people see no problem with requiring an ID, state permission, expensive training, or outright prohibition with one but not the other. How can we as a people so easily dismiss one right while railing against a tempest on the other? Where is the ACLU on this? Where is the media coverage on the inequality of treatment for Constitutional rights?
While our Constitution provides each of us with the right to vote, the Founding Fathers went that extra mile to emphatically state, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Notice they said "...the people." That's us. That's your right and mine as citizens. Any requirement by the government could be viewed as an infringement on gun ownership in light of this specific phrase.
When considering the issue of voter ID, I've listened to many people argue that the mere requirement to show proof of who you in order to vote is an unconstitutional infringement on their right to vote! But consider that the same people complaining about voter ID is an infringement are themselves calling for additional infringements on our 2nd Amendment rights in the form of proof of ID, background checks, and outright prohibition of any 2nd Amendment right. How is it that infringement is okay for one right but not okay for the other?
I would be willing to wager that any legal gun owner cherishes their right to vote just as much as their right to own their gun. How can we as a citizenship selectively choose one right over another at the same time?
COB
0
-
COB I have no problem with voter ID. I agree whole heartedly with you. 0 -
Thanks. I'm sincerely trying to illustrate to others that we treat our rights differently for no valid reason.
COB0 -
What way too many people on both sides don't seem to understand is, all rights are the same, whether 1st amendment or 10th. If we fold on any part of any of them, we will eventually loose all of them. 0 -
I take it further than that.
The progressives say we can't have a 'Poll Tax' or a 'Literacy Tests' to vote, but they want to require an 'Ownership Tax' on the RTKABA's, and the 'Background check and Training' to exercise the RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS! [V]
They don't seem to understand the word 'infringe'!!![:(]
The right to vote is irrelevant if we are not allowed to be armed![:(!]0 -
Jim, I would love to find a lawyer willing to take on the state of Nevada just for that reason. I feel the $25 nics fee to be same as charging someone to vote or a church a special fee to practice their beliefs. 0 -
"Voting is a right guaranteed by the Constitution, our Constitution, as a basic founding block of a representative government. Our Constitution's 15th Amendment clearly 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 race, color, or previous condition of servitude."
Actually, it is not a guaranteed right in anyway whatsoever.It only guarantees that the right to vote can not be denied due to "race, color, or previous condition of servitude".
Personally, I prefer a requirement to be able to vote- you have to be a taxpayer. If you do not pay federal taxes, then you can not vote in a federal election. Do not pay state taes? Cant vote in a state election. Extend this right down to school board elections.0 -
Salzo, while I understand what your trying to say. I must dis-aggree. Everyone pays taxs. Be they federal sales tax on gas, or state sales taxs. Most of us pay income taxs but get part if not all of it back as a rebate. So is it really paid since we get back?
I also noticed that the right to vote as it is stated in the constitution has one thing missing that the 2nd does not. The phrase, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." it is the only admendment that says that. For good reason. We are seeing the reason today.0 -
+10k
quote:Originally posted by 45long
I also noticed that the right to vote as it is stated in the constitution has one thing missing that the 2nd does not. The phrase, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." it is the only admendment that says that. For good reason. We are seeing the reason today.0 -
salzo, I agree partialy with you. I feel only property owners should be able to vote on property taxes. At present I rent, when it comes to tax issues I ask my landlord his feelings. 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
9 comments