Okay, first things first:
quash wrote:Fight me IRL if you want to man up so badly.
This deserves to be commemorated. Consider yourself sigged.
As I mentioned before, voting rights are different in that they are by definition upheld by the government.
...seriously? We're not talking about firearm
acquisition, we're talking about firearm
regulation, which the government
does uphold, and the whole reason it was even brought up is to ask whether or not you can even
attempt to justify your declared reverence for the Founding Fathers and their legacy within the context of anything
other than the Second Amendment.
This isn't hard. Or do you just plan to segue this into yet another what-me-worry variation of "because some people don't follow laws and they can't be enforced 100 percent we should just repeal most of them"?
Anyway, since you half-acquiesced to my
outlandish demands:
For your simple yes or no answer, yes, I am as much of a voting rights absolutist as I am a gun rights absolutist
The problem with "minor inconvenience" is that it can and often times does expand into outright prohibition, or coming just shy of it, at least.
Alrighty, so, based on the above you apparently
do believe that things such as closing polling places, reducing voting hours and early voting opportunities, instituting de facto poll taxes and prohibiting those with felonies on their record from voting
are infringements upon one's right to vote (and that's before you get into less concrete territory). Why, then, in the midst of the myriad other "scandals" you've run your mouth about for years running, can I not
once recall you having expressed the mildest, most passing concern for this
outrageous slippery slope we're on, and declaring any politician in favor of them a threat to democracy who should be evicted from office? And when the issue
was broached, why were you so
cringingly obstinate in attempting to declare it "off topic" or whatever else would get you out of addressing it?
It's almost like taking time to discuss those sorts of less-spicy topics doesn't adequately serve as a surefire way to keep the gravy train rolling as long as you know the right buttons to press.
With all this being said, though, if you really are that skeptical of the government's ability to uphold voting rights, why are you so willing to let them have more control over the right we have to make sure our government doesn't get too power hungry?
I'm not skeptical of their ability to uphold them - especially if folks like you actually got loud about it - but I
am horrified at those who are openly
attacking them and, contrary to ongoing theatrics, invoking absolutely
zero pushback - frankly, it's more often encouragement - from born on the fourth of July types like yourself, who claim to be more concerned with the any-day-now March of Obama's Zionist Mexicans, which I've expressed ample scorn for previously (along with the notion that if the government
really wanted to get you, just go Jason Bourne on them, it's easy!), so no need to waste any more keystrokes than I'm already wasting on you.
I asked if under the current system, do these things count as infringement upon voting rights?
Depends on what side of the equation you're on, I suppose: if you voted for the popular vote winner but your state didn't, your vote is rescued from being essentially thrown out, but those who voted for the other person would just be disenfranchised in your stead. The problem is that the "winner take all" system
requires that a sizeable portion of the population will end up feeling like its vote didn't count - and they'll be right - and splitting the electoral vote proportionally (or just a popular vote count) would let their ballot count as much as anyone else's no matter what the people around them do. Again, though, you don't care.
As for the tax return requirement, "money = protected speech" is a pitiful farce, so I frankly welcome any and all resistance to that plutocratic wet dream: as I said, if you're so loudly certain that your wealth proves you're so much better-suited for power than the rest of us - and want to institute policies that
very much reflect that belief - don't you dare get modest about it
now.
Let me also take this opportunity to have a hearty laugh at your
genuine concern about government wanting to expand, not contract...in
total contrast, of course, to the private-sector alternatives,
particularly the gun lobby, though at least the latter don't have to worry about petty things like, oh,
anything and everything aside from profits.
To act like they don't have a pony in the race is, uh, to put it lightly, dumb.
To act like California and similar states are the only places where the police come out against loosening gun laws is, to put it lightly, trolling like hell, and doing it
badly.
Are you paying attention to any right winger's takes on social media right now?
Can't say I'm much of a regular.
(Which, of course, means I shouldn't get to say anything about it, if your reactions to everything I've posted about guns is any indication.) As tempted as I am to just say "the reception must be fuzzy on whatever planet you're posting from" and call it a day, I think it's safe to note that 1) For all the sound and fury, nobody within that cadre seems to be electing, or even nominating, anyone to office who isn't a dyed-in-the-wool scorched-earth corporatist, funnily enough, and 2) A
significant portion of anyone who says he's of "the right" but talks about government takeovers of industry and whatnot is likely at least leaning fascist, with all the baggage that comes standard (all lies invented by the globalists, of course).
I want UBI to be paid for by the toppest of the top 1%ers. I will unironically vote for Andrew Yang if given the chance.
Seems like only yesterday you were ragging on me for "wanting to punish the people who actually know how to make money". Color me even more
skeptical of your Socialist awakening than of your usual claptrap.
Limits on semi-auto firearms (which is to say, any firearm where you pull the trigger once and one bullet comes out and cycles another) are limits on firearms, and full-auto has been banned for a long time now.
...and your "solution", as I said, is to eliminate pretty much
all limitations on firearms - and, as I
also said, do essentially
nothing beyond getting the bodies tagged before the next bloodbath starts. Former soldier that you are, I don't think there's a bolder way to show how much you truly cherish the fellow Americans you so proudly served to protect (though obviously I don't get to have even a cursory viewpoint on that, either).
You're right, with ten days they can make IED's and plan an escape route before they shoot up their place of work or study. Good looking out, there!
For someone who supposedly wants less government oversight in favor of rugged individuals charting their own path without interference, you also seem quite convinced (or, much more likely, willing to act like you believe, until doing so is no longer convenient) that pretty much everyone who's ever misused a firearm is an irredeemable psychopath...and somehow
still don't want to even
begin to prevent
any of them from building a completely legal arsenal. Because the New World Order is coming for you.
Yeah, it's past time for me to get back off the crazy train for awhile. Have fun emptying a free clip or two into my comatose digital cadaver.