How do? We currently have license requirements for some firearms. Why would it be different if those licenses are issued locally and required renewal and follow up?
See my post above. âŚ
Hyperbolic and questionable. On a phone so canât repond longer but will point out voting has restrictions.
See my post above.
Just because infringements have been allowed and tolerated does not mean that they are not infringements. Its sorta like the speed limit ⌠just because the cops will allow you 5 mph over the posted speed before they will ticket you does not mean that the speed limit isnât what is posted on the sign.
1 Like
I know of a small town where the police frequently would give tickets for going 1 mph over the limit.
Most HP and Sheriffs around will allow 5 to 10 mph on highways.
Speakers frequently fire people up to commit horrible acts of violence. See the âHands Up Donât Shootâ, and âBlack Lives Matterâ movements.
Existing infringements donât change the fact they are infringements.
Any form or prior restraint, licensing, or special taxes on firearms and/or ammunition by definition infringe on our right to keep and bear arms.
1 Like
Of course voting comes with restrictions as it is a heavily restricted privilege. The only ârightâ to vote is that all adult citizens must be treated equally under the voting laws.
If we restricted voting to solely people who actually end up paying themselves for what theyâre voting on instead of the current voting with other peoplesâ money, the Democrats would lose most if not all of their appeal overnight. Just imagine not being able to vote to increase property taxes if you donât own a home. Thatâs just one example.
Iâd be perfectly happy with restricting voting to sane, non felon, property owners who have a net positive tax liability for the prior year.
Not quite wanting to go that far since that would just be the opposite end of the spectrum from where we are now. The idea (mine anyway) is to make it impossible for someone like me to vote how to spend your money. If I donât have kids in school, why I should I have to pay for schooling other peoplesâ kids? Its the same exact principle of forcing those who have insurance to pay higher insurance premiums in order to cover those who choose not to have insurance. Thatâs how these crooks remain in office imo. Offering giveaways with other peoplesâ money.
Iâm just saying if youâre going to have a ballot measure dealing with something that is going to be funded with taxpayer money, than only the people who are actually paying that tax should be able to vote on it. Too many instances now where we have people voting to fund things that donât pay a dime in the taxes theyâre voting to increase, even after the measure passes. Ironically enough, those same people usually end up being a bulk of the people voting for it. Funny how that works.
To me that would be too complicated and Iâm just taking it to the logical end.
If you donât pay taxes you shouldnât be able to vote for those who will decide how our tax dollars are spent.
FWIW, I think if youâre already on the public dole, you also shouldnât be allowed to vote on issues affecting how much you get from that. Conflict of interest.
No more complicated than checking a voterâs eligibility. Did the voter pay property taxes last year/this year? No? Not allowed to vote on raising property taxes.
It would also virtually eliminate the handouts like arbitrary minimum wage increases since only employers (who would actually be the ones shelling out the money for the wage increase) could vote on it.
This is why a majority of these handouts are tied to general measures and they allow anyone and everyone who has a pulse to vote on it. Have you met a single working person who wouldnât vote themselves a raise if they were able to? How about a homeless person who could vote themselves a house? A student who could vote themselves an education? Sounding familiar yet?