bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

that is one of the stupidest things I've heard lately. You use phrases like "liberal mindset" but are clueless about what "liberal" stands for. And you talk about not trusting totally normal rational adults with guns when that has not been an issue anywhere. Please . . . . . .

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

(I would add to that, many of our resident liberal trolls)

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

essentially = exactly

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Just as I thought, he's not capable of making an adult decision in his own best interest, so even if it's his hand, someone else is really voting twice. No wonder liberals are against voter laws.

With all the discussion about rights and responsibility that has gone on in this thread for the past couple of days, I was thinking about it yesterday as I was driving home. We have a basic right to travel freely, however the state claims the right to be sure you're proficient before granting a drivers license, but that restriction does not negate your right to buy a car. We have a right to "Keep and Bear Arms" but many think there should be strict limits on that right (I won't even mention those who believe we should be stripped of that right), while a license to carry is arguably within the states right to demand you be licensed to carry one concealed. We also have freedom of speech, but it does not include yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded venue. So if everyone agrees that the states (NOT the federal government) has the power to regulate the exercise of our rights, doesn't it make sense that not only should we be required to show ID to vote, shouldn't we also be required to pass a test, like a civil service test that a postal worker has to pass to deliver your mail, before we can vote?

I'd bet the conservatives would go for this idea, but I'd also bet that the majority, if not all of the liberals on here would oppose the idea. After all "it's a basic right and shouldn't be infringed upon". I can hear them screaming that or something similar to it now. Yet why when it's okay to regulate our other rights, is the right to vote open to anyone who can get a ballot, legally, by hook or by crook, even those with the mental capacity of a child? We wonder why the country is going down hill like a bobsled, and the same corrupt politicians keep getting reelected over and over, it's easy, the vast majority of voters, not only don't understand the simple basics of our government, but have no clue about the candidates or the issues.

Need proof? Here...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Url1HL6oExk

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

You haven't been reading your own posts?

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

You know what they always say.......better "off" than "on"!

I really have no idea if the cops can "insist" if you wear your seat belt or not, but I DO know that they will sure as hell give you a ticket if they catch you NOT wearing it, and you WILL pay the ticket.

bgl Loc: Brooklyn,New York

Apparently you haven't much, if any, experience with mildly retarded individuals. I'll put it in simple terms that even you ought to be able to understand. They, although like everybody else have varying abilities and can be quite capable of many things. Some, like my son, are slow to grasp some things, but once something is explained is able to make a "rational" decision. I used "like a 7 year old" as a metaphor because it makes the point that he will never be able to live independently but it does not mean that he is an idiot.

It's true that many people do not make rational decisions when they vote, often voting against their own self interests. But beware the slippery slope that a test to vote implies. The so-called voter ID laws that have sprung up have been justified by their promoters as a means to prevent voter fraud. We all know that the real reason is to suppress certain votes. Shame on them; it's dishonest and dirty.

heyrob Loc: Western Washington

Come on, I'll put it this in simple terms that even you ought to be able to understand. You have to show ID to cash a check, you have to show ID to go into a bar until it's obvious you're old enough, you have to show ID to do countless things on a day to day basis, so how is showing ID going to suppress a person's right to vote. Unless of course he's not registered in the first place. That has been a lame excuse for those who like the unregistered and ineligible voting for the left, who's promising all that free stuff on the taxpayer dime. I can guarantee if the average vote illegal alien was voting republican, the democrats would bring back literacy tests in an instant.

FRENCHY Loc: Stone Mountain , Ga

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Ya know Doc ..... I was asked to show ID last week ..... yep, hard as that is to believe ..... she said I looked too young ..... I tink she was flurtin Doc .....

Merlin1300 Loc: New England, But Now & Forever SoTX

Well -- you ARE a DANG cute Wabbit - - I mean if Roger could snare Jessica - - well - - there ya have it :D
-
And I found out yesterday as I ordered my overpriced frozen Margarita at the state fair - - not just ANY ID will do - -
Apparently my retired military ID wasn't good enough - - because it doesn't show my birthdate - - REALLY ??
Lets see - - minimum 18 years to JOIN the military and a minimum 20 years service to RETIRE - - perhaps there should be a law that people serving alcohol should be able to ADD before they can be hired ??
I guess that wouldn't stop em from being able to VOTE though?
-
Perhaps we're looking at the wrong KIND of a firearms test.
Answer a few simple questions to determine:
Can the person distinguishing a legal act vs an illegal one
Is the person capable of distinguishing right from wrong
Does the person understand that Life is precious (whether a frog or human - true - sometimes there is little difference)
Does the person understand that shooting another person may well wind the shooter up in jail - based on the whim of a political appointee ??
-
If answered satisfactorily - that should be all the test needed.
If cousin Bob understands that if he pulls the trigger, misses the bad guy, but kills the neighbor instead - - Bob will likely be the bad guys' cell mate {assuming they catch the bad guy}
-
Similar test for voters:
Name the last 2 democratic presidents and for each, one main policy platform
Same for the last 2 republican presidents.
-
If all you know is 'I got my obamaphone so I'm votin for him' - -you DON'T get to pull the lever.
Foo - - there I go - - who pulls a lever any more?
-
Same principle underlies both: If you cannot understand the ramifications of what you are about to do - you should NOT be permitted to do it. Shoot a Firearm, Vote, produce children - - ALL the same concept. Seems the Libs don't understand the 'understand' part. And that is why the country is going down the tubes - total lack of understanding on the part of the voters, and unfortunately, there are now more of them than there are of us. The only thing we can do is slow the eventual outcome - which will be harder and harder to do.

Roger & Jessica

LDB415 Loc: Houston south suburb

+1

magicray Loc: Tampa Bay, Florida

Ya, wabbit, those whorehouses always ask for an ID. I coulda warned ya . They usually ask if they think your love machine is ...well...sorta...on the ....small size. I'm never asked.

DrPhrogg Loc: NJ

The problem with "common sense" is that is sometimes based on opinion rather than law. The law has to apply equally to everyone. It is common sense that the legislative bodies in each state or in DC address this concern, but judges are not permitted to make that call. In NJ, with all its onerous gun laws, they did this one right. The state purchase form asks if the buyer has any physical disease or disability. If yes, does this make it unsafe for you to handle a firearm? If not, explain here. I have worked with legally blind people who were perfectly capable of using a firearm. They understood the safety rules, and could recognize all barriers. Should they have a carry permit? That is a who different issue. The Supreme court has said that the right to own a gun is not absolute. States may impose reasonable restrictions. However, should Stevie Wonder be able to buy fully functional Civil War antiques for collection purposes? Not everything is as simple as "common sense" would tell you.

Gitzo Loc: Indiana

I've been thinking the same thing, Rob......