So A Korean War Veteran Walks Into a Protest

And one would think, considering all the crying of "foul" the NAACP does about voting problems, they would be happy to support registration for voting. The weight of potential fraud being greater than the weight of anonymity.

reply to post by HauntWok

Actually it's quite constitutional, part of that "A well regulated" part that gun nuts often forget.

Then the same 'rationale' would apply to voting, but for anyone paying attention it is anything but 'well regulated'.

Sure thing, Article I Section 8 Clause 16

Nice try:

Amendment II 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.

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE.

And of course the IX

Amendment IX The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That says the power given by the constitution can not be construed( interpret) TO DENY or DISPARAGE others ( RIGHTS) retained by the people.

Asking for ID neither denies nor disparages the 'right to vote' as ID is used, and needed in just about every part of American society.

I think Kali's point has nothing to do with what the man was protesting, but that he was arrested for doing so, and that his age and service should also be taken into account.

I don't think his age or service should be taken into account personally. I'm fairly certain he was treated well (cuffed in front) and that he probably actually got a kick out of it.

I don't even have an opinion really, just wanted to try to help keep this potential train wreck on the tracks.

Originally posted by Domo1
I think Kali's point has nothing to do with what the man was protesting, but that he was arrested for doing so, and that his age and service should also be taken into account.

I don't think his age or service should be taken into account personally. I'm fairly certain he was treated well (cuffed in front) and that he probably actually got a kick out of it.

I don't even have an opinion really, just wanted to try to help keep this potential train wreck on the tracks.

It was noted by the gentleman that his "arrest" was done in a respectable manner. I too want to know, just what was he booked with? The article refers to "refusing to leave the 'peoples' house'", but that doesn't say much. I think parading this man around (and maybe he wants to; that is his business) doesn't help move the cause they are fighting for forward; only distracts in my opinion.

Originally posted by Logarock
And one would think, considering all the crying of "foul" the NAACP does about voting problems, they would be happy to support registration for voting. The weight of potential fraud being greater than the weight of anonymity.

Even then it isn't an anonymity problem. Typically IDs are checked against a voter roll and then you take up the booth you want. Is there a possibility for someone to "assign" you to one? Probably, but that is a different beast all together.

I would tackle the fraud issue, as we continue to advance our methods of voting, to ensure that only citizens of a particular State vote. Right now there is nothing stopping me from voting in California and Nevada concurrently save someone matching me to the registered voter roll.

I am more outraged that this same veteran can be easily manipulated into a manufactured "Photo Op" for the sake of the NAACP and others, who systematically "protest" like Westboro Baptist Church.

Originally posted by Kali74
reply to post by DaTroof

 

It doesn't matter if they were protesting a vote to change the official State candy, it's their right to do so. Need a match? The Constitution isn't quite burnt up yet.

One's right to protest does not equate to a right to interfere with other people travelling and doing business. They intentionally block access to force an arrest so they can get photos like this one.

Sorry to say this, but I think most of you are missing the real important part here.

This is not about ID's to vote or anything of the sort.

We should be concerned that our right to peacefully assemble and express our grievances with government are not being respected. People are being arrested for no other reason then they want to voice their opinion and I find it extremely sad that we have lost the ability to create a government by, of, and for the people.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
Sorry to say this, but I think most of you are missing the real important part here.

This is not about ID's to vote or anything of the sort.

We should be concerned that our right to peacefully assemble and express our grievances with government are not being respected. People are being arrested for no other reason then they want to voice their opinion and I find it extremely sad that we have lost the ability to create a government by, of, and for the people.

edit on 25-7-2013 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-7-2013 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)

That is disingenuous. They are not being arrested because they want to vote--they can vote at any election they want. They are being arrested because they are blocking access for other people. One's right to protest does not mean you can violate another person's right to travel or do business.

Why do you think the left is so dead set against a system that ensures that everyone who votes is the person actually eligible to vote and is only voting once?

reply to post by NavyDoc

They are being arrested because they are blocking access for other people. One's right to protest does not mean you can violate another person's right to travel or do business.

I've heard this argument many times and I find it to be quite a lazy approach. The constitution does not state that we have the right to assemble...except when someone is inconvenienced. Also, I see nothing in the constitution about the right to travel or do business.

Lets also remember this protest was at the legislature building......where else are they supposed to protest?

Sorry, I just find that line of thinking to be incredibly dangerous because it trivializes what the right to assemble means and how we should be able to exercise that right. I'm sorry if some people have to use the side door to get into the building.

That's the price we pay to live in a country where we have the right to gather and express our grievances against government.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

They are being arrested because they are blocking access for other people. One's right to protest does not mean you can violate another person's right to travel or do business.

I've heard this argument many times and I find it to be quite a lazy approach. The constitution does not state that we have the right to assemble...except when someone is inconvenienced. Also, I see nothing in the constitution about the right to travel or do business.

Lets also remember this protest was at the legislature building......where else are they supposed to protest?

Sorry, I just find that line of thinking to be incredibly dangerous because it trivializes what the right to assemble means and how we should be able to exercise that right. I'm sorry if some people have to use the side door to get into the building.

That's the price we pay to live in a country where we have the right to gather and express our grievances against government.

Well technically the legislature is already the elected standing assembly. A group of partisans forcing its way into the assembly is not what the constitution has in mind with free assembly. Freedom to assemble has to do primarily with meeting on their own ground or public ground in an orderly manner.

Originally posted by sheepslayer247
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

They are being arrested because they are blocking access for other people. One's right to protest does not mean you can violate another person's right to travel or do business.

I've heard this argument many times and I find it to be quite a lazy approach. The constitution does not state that we have the right to assemble...except when someone is inconvenienced. Also, I see nothing in the constitution about the right to travel or do business.

Lets also remember this protest was at the legislature building......where else are they supposed to protest?

Sorry, I just find that line of thinking to be incredibly dangerous because it trivializes what the right to assemble means and how we should be able to exercise that right. I'm sorry if some people have to use the side door to get into the building.

That's the price we pay to live in a country where we have the right to gather and express our grievances against government.

The right to "peaceably assemble." Interfering with another person's rights is not peaceful assembly. That is the concept of freedom. You are free to do what you want as long as you don't harm the freedoms of the other people. When they seek redress against their government by preventing other people access to their government by blocking the passageways, they are violating other people's rights.

I find your thinking dangerous because that leads to the concept that one can do whatever they want and harm anyone else's rights as long as they are "protesting."

Smash in my shop window?

That's cool...they were protesting.