Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 08-25-2017, 10:13 AM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,444,621 times
Reputation: 2540

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
"How do YOU feel about automatic voter registration of all Americans...18 and over?"

I am NOT for it due to voting is a STATE responsibility NOT the feds.

If a state wants to do it, it is OK by me as long as a VALID photo ID is provided to PROVE you are a legal American citizen.

A state Drivers licenses is valid in every state.

Are you for a state issued Concealed Carry Permit being valid in EVERY other state?
I'm in favor of permitless carry. Idaho is one of growing number of States that allow both open carry and permitless concealed weapons carry.

I think voting is a nationwide right..thus the fed can, and does, regulate it.

 
Old 08-25-2017, 11:01 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
I'm in favor of permitless carry. Idaho is one of growing number of States that allow both open carry and permitless concealed weapons carry.

I think voting is a nationwide right..thus the fed can, and does, regulate it.
The right to bear arms is not a nationwide right? Do I misunderstand you? The right to vote is nationwide so the federal government should regulate it but guns, also being a nationwide right, should not be?
 
Old 08-25-2017, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,444,621 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The right to bear arms is not a nationwide right? Do I misunderstand you? The right to vote is nationwide so the federal government should regulate it but guns, also being a nationwide right, should not be?
Yeah..a little. I do in fact, believe that gun rights and regulation should be a federal mandate...but...as it is currently not, I was pointing out Idaho's solution.

I'm not in favor of States regulating constitutional rights. There should be one standard. ..IMO
 
Old 08-25-2017, 12:15 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
Yeah..a little. I do in fact, believe that gun rights and regulation should be a federal mandate...but...as it is currently not, I was pointing out Idaho's solution.

I'm not in favor of States regulating constitutional rights. There should be one standard. ..IMO
Why should rights be regulated at all?
 
Old 08-25-2017, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,444,621 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
Why should rights be regulated at all?

Obvious answer...to protect the weak from the wicked.

Also, to define limits. Yes, while rights should be absolute..they should not encroach on another's liberty.
 
Old 08-25-2017, 03:08 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
Obvious answer...to protect the weak from the wicked.
No, that doesn't make any sense.

Quote:
Also, to define limits. Yes, while rights should be absolute..they should not encroach on another's liberty.
In general, when they do they are no longer rights.
 
Old 08-25-2017, 06:27 PM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,444,621 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
No, that doesn't make any sense.



In general, when they do they are no longer rights.
2nd amendment---arms for all--yet..why no arms for felons? To protect the public, right?

Free speech--but no 'crying fire in a theater'--why? to protect the public.

The public weal supersedes individual rights..or so the SCOTUS has ruled.

We have the right of free and unfettered movement...we have a right to privacy---Unless one is a sex offender. Again, the public good.

To protect the weak,,those who cannot protect themselves..from the wicked--those who would use their rights..if they had them to the same degree as an ordinary citizen--to prey upon people.

Seems simple to me.
 
Old 08-25-2017, 08:54 PM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
2nd amendment---arms for all--yet..why no arms for felons? To protect the public, right?
The Constitution provides for that.

Quote:
Free speech--but no 'crying fire in a theater'--why? to protect the public.
That is a misnomer. You can yell fire all day. As long as you do not cause harm to anyone, no harm done.

Quote:
The public weal supersedes individual rights..or so the SCOTUS has ruled.
No they haven't.

Quote:
We have the right of free and unfettered movement...we have a right to privacy---Unless one is a sex offender. Again, the public good.
The Constitution provides for that. It's called due process.

Quote:
To protect the weak,,those who cannot protect themselves..from the wicked--those who would use their rights..if they had them to the same degree as an ordinary citizen--to prey upon people.

Seems simple to me.
I'm not sure what you think.
 
Old 08-26-2017, 06:09 AM
 
Location: Twin Falls Idaho
4,996 posts, read 2,444,621 times
Reputation: 2540
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp View Post
The Constitution provides for that.



That is a misnomer. You can yell fire all day. As long as you do not cause harm to anyone, no harm done.



No they haven't.



The Constitution provides for that. It's called due process.



I'm not sure what you think.
LoL..but you're sure that you're against it.

A simple, 'No', proves nothing.

'The constitution provides for that' Well yeah..that's kinda my point...You asked why rights needed to be regulated...the Constitution regulates rights..and you seem..by the form of your rebuttal , to be OK with that.
 
Old 08-27-2017, 05:46 AM
 
79,907 posts, read 44,199,011 times
Reputation: 17209
Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilEyeFleegle View Post
LoL..but you're sure that you're against it.

A simple, 'No', proves nothing.

'The constitution provides for that' Well yeah..that's kinda my point...You asked why rights needed to be regulated...the Constitution regulates rights..and you seem..by the form of your rebuttal , to be OK with that.
Rights can be removed from some for doing things that violate the rights of others, that is not regulating rights.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:31 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top