Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 5:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:06:09 GMT -5
The whole argument is a waste of time with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling verifying the individual right. A "well regulated militia" no longer applies to the individual right. Some times 'progressive' applies to something a liberal does not agree with. Quote; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._HellerI would take issue with your wording. Heller did not "verify" an individual right. It "created" one. Very different. Depends on the point of view. For me it was verification. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 5:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:07:23 GMT -5
The whole argument is a waste of time with the 2008 Supreme Court ruling verifying the individual right. A "well regulated militia" no longer applies to the individual right. Some times 'progressive' applies to something a liberal does not agree with. Quote; District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller Not unless a subsequent the Supreme Court ruling reverses this ruling. In an everchanging environment this is not beyond the realm of possibilities.  Of course, but as with Roe v Wade, not very likely. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 5:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:12:35 GMT -5
The whole argument is a waste of time ... Agreed. The only way one can counter the background checks for the 15th Amendment argument is with logic. The logic being that we need to know who is voting. Doing it on the honor system doesn't seem very intelligent these days with millions of illegal aliens present in the country. We need a national background check for voting safety. No legal voter would have anything to worry about. This seems like a reasonable process for the voting public. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,615 
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 13:21:01 GMT -5
Agreed. The only way one can counter the background checks for the 15th Amendment argument is with logic. The logic being that we need to know who is voting. Doing it on the honor system doesn't seem very intelligent these days with millions of illegal aliens present in the country. We need a national background check for voting safety. No legal voter would have anything to worry about. This seems like a reasonable process for the voting public. And has nothing to do with the 15th Amendment. |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,615
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 13:22:30 GMT -5
... We need a national background check for voting safety. ... Considering that there are no national elections, I disagree we need a national background check. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 5:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:33:16 GMT -5
... We need a national background check for voting safety. ... Considering that there are no national elections, I disagree we need a national background check. We still need a national background check system, to check that all voters are legal citizens. This is reasonable due to the large number of illegals in this country. No person who is a legal voter would be affected by this. Register to vote ? A background check comes with it. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 5:37:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 13, 2018 13:38:46 GMT -5
After the basic background check is in place, and the precedent is in place, we then move to a possible new 'expanded' background check for other possible problems that develop with voting.  |
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,615
|
Post by billisonboard on Apr 13, 2018 13:44:46 GMT -5
Considering that there are no national elections, I disagree we need a national background check. We still need a national background check system, to check that all voters are legal citizens. ... Is there now a registry of citizens to check or will the federal government have to create one? |
|
