It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: macman
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Gryphon66
So, only infringement just a little bit...........for just a few..
Infringement is still infringement.
No ..."Infringement" is whatever someone throwing a tantrum says it is.
I was taxed this morning buying a cup of coffee. My right to happiness was infringed upon.
Show, please show me where the right to purchase a cup of coffee shall not be infringed upon?
Happiness is subjective.
If it was unconstitutional to associate fees with the purchase of a gun, then the constitution would say the same as it does with voting.
You continue to make no sense. You are claiming ....that as long as the required purchase has another use it is not a Poll tax? The constitution and the courts vehemently disagree with this view... Thus people are not required to be land owners to vote. Nor purchase a candy bar.
If it is "not a voting license, or voting permit" then it would neither license nor permit you to vote...
We are in pretty basic territory here...
My issue is with facts...perhaps that is the nature of your frustration?
originally posted by: Indigo5
Sure..right after you show me how having to pay for purchasing a gun infringes on your right to own a gun..
originally posted by: Indigo5
Or better yet...show me where in the constitution it declares that the government can't attach tax or fees to gun purchases...something akin to the 24th Amendment that forbids the same for the act of voting.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
*yawn*
More Regressive non-speech and pseudo-logic, for the most part, when you're not meandering on about what you think of me. Merely boring at this point. Like most Regressives.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Poll taxes are specifically restricted in the Constitution, Amendment 24.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Showing an ID for a gun purchase is not. Neither is having a background check for a gun purchase. In fact, the Constitution does not address gun purchases.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
By the way, Regressive, did you answer the question about whether you think the rights of mentally ill Americans should not be infringed in the purchase and ownership of firearms? Or are you still proving your independence by only responding to what suits your twisted argument, like most Regressives.
I'm sure we'll all be fascinated with your Regressive answer.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
MAC:
Please demonstrate where Amendment 24 states "a fee directly to enter a voting booth."
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Please demonstrate where Amendment 2 states anything about the process of purchasing a firearm.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
And I'll be darned if I can find anywhere in this thread where you actually addressed the question of the mentally ill and the 2nd Amendment. I will admit my eyes aren't as good as they used to be. Can you toss me a link or at least a page number in the thread where you responded?
Thanks.
originally posted by: Daedalus
a reply to: Indigo5
it does, right where it states "shall not be infringed" it is a statement that the GOVERNMENT may not infringe upon a citizen's right to own a gun....imposing taxes, and fees for licensing and permits, is infringement
the point of contention being used in the example is the fee associated with a license, permit, or class 3 stamp, that serves as an actual financial barrier to some citizens
this is the exact same thing you are erroneously claiming requiring I.D. to vote is doing.
no, activist judges, crooked politicians, and deluded fools disagree with this view. the constitution says "no poll tax"...ok, that's good, a poll tax is a dirty trick. requiring I.D. to vote, is not a poll tax...
again, if i must present a valid I.D. to carry out mundane every day activities, why should i NOT be required to present it, to do something as important as voting?
it doesn't....what allows you to vote, is being a registered voter, who is a legal U.S. citizen...all the I.D. does is verify the legal citizen bit....
being a citizen is a poll tax, because if you weren't born here, it costs money to become a citizen...
originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, Amendment 24 does not say what you said it does then. I didn't think so. So that's a "no." Check.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Right, infringement of the right to bear arms. Doesn't say anything about the right to purchase arms. Another "no" then. Check.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
Well, now you're just being a mean ol' Regressive, Mac.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
What's the big deal about repeating your statement? It's not like I'm asking for a handout or something, jeez.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
EDIT PS: Just read every one of your responses in this thread again. You addressed the 2nd and Convicted Felons. You've not said a thing about whether the mentally ill shouldn't be "infringed" against. So, I'm adjusting my citation.
Mean ol' prevaricating Regressive.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
We do seem to be doing nothing but chasing our tails in this discussion.
Okay, both Pro and Con thread respondents, do you have any issue with the States requiring a form of photo ID to vote as long as the State makes the Photo Voter IDs available free of cost, available in easily accessible locations, with no hidden fees, and with every effort made to accept reasonable methods of identification?
originally posted by: [post=18544795]Gryphon66]
My answer is that so long as the Photo Voter ID is accessible to everyone equally, and passed with enough time in advance of the next election for everyone to get one that wants to vote ... I have no issue with it. I'm actually in favor of a Federal or National ID, so that a lot of these silly issues go away.
originally posted by: [post=18544795]Gryphon66]
Of course, I'm also fine with an RFID chip being placed under the skin in a reasonably accessible place like the palm of the hand or the forehead ... but I'm a godless heathern [sic] that's not afraid of faery tales about Marks and Beasts.
originally posted by: retiredTxn
At this time, we are arguing a moot point. The Texas Voter ID law is back in effect, and will be enforced in the upcoming election.
originally posted by: Flatfish
This will be headed to the SCOTUS prior to the upcoming election and if recent history is any kind of indicator, I'll just bet they strike it down and uphold the current ruling issued by Judge Ramos in Corpus Christi last week.
That's what they did last week with respect to the voter ID laws in Wisconsin and I'd bet they do the same thing here.
Just remember, it ain't over till the fat lady sings.