Yet another Democrat gets busted for illegal voting.

[fskimospy]

Be sure and let me know how that works out for you.

It really works out well for me either way. I find it highly unlikely that your claim was true to begin with and I imagine you couldn't link credible evidence even if you wanted to. (I was waiting for a link to some far right anti-voting rights website that you would think was credible because it told you what you wanted to hear)

So either you link something and it most likely turns out you're wrong, or you refuse to back up your claim and it becomes clear to people that you were full of shit to begin with. Either way I win.

 

[OGOC]

What you don't seem to understand is that the 24th amendment was passed to stop politicians from not allowing certain types/groups/races from voting. Basically to stop discrimination. Gun control laws affect everyone and do not descriminate, rich, poor, black, and white are all affected equally.

You wanting to equate the prohibition of poll taxes, that is used to not allow descrimination, with gun control laws which are to keep guns out of the wrong hands (of course there is debate on what that means) is freaking retarded. That and the fact that there are no "poll tax" prohibition laws.

If you say gun control laws do not discriminate rich from poor, then you are either ignorant or you are lying. Not everyone can afford to pay $450 in fees to possess a handgun. Not everyone can afford to pay a hidden 10% tax on every gun and bullet. Not everyone can afford to buy high-priced guns after the affordable ones were banned for being affordable.

You forgot to answer my questions:

Do you think it is infringing on someone's rights to require them to pay $450 in fees and get fingerprinted and provide character witness references before they are allowed to possess an item to exercise a right that shall not be infringed?

Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

 

[fskimospy]

If you say gun control laws do not discriminate rich from poor, then you are either ignorant or you are lying. Not everyone can afford to pay $450 in fees to possess a handgun. Not everyone can afford to pay a hidden 10% tax on every gun and bullet. Not everyone can afford to buy high-priced guns after the affordable ones were banned for being affordable.

You forgot to answer my questions:

Do you think it is infringing on someone's rights to require them to pay $450 in fees and get fingerprinted and provide character witness references before they are allowed to possess an item to exercise a right that shall not be infringed?

Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

You realize that you can make all sorts of laws restricting access to guns and not run afoul of the 2nd amendment, right?

 

[ivwshane]

If you say gun control laws do not discriminate rich from poor, then you are either ignorant or you are lying. Not everyone can afford to pay $450 in fees to possess a handgun. Not everyone can afford to pay a hidden 10% tax on every gun and bullet. Not everyone can afford to buy high-priced guns after the affordable ones were banned for being affordable.

You forgot to answer my questions:

Do you think it is infringing on someone's rights to require them to pay $450 in fees and get fingerprinted and provide character witness references before they are allowed to possess an item to exercise a right that shall not be infringed?

Which part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?

You forgot to read my response in which I gave several examples of rights that are impeded by costs.

I see we aren't getting anywhere so good day to you.

 

[ivwshane]

You realize that you can make all sorts of laws restricting access to guns and not run afoul of the 2nd amendment, right?

I don't think he realizes shit.

 

[monovillage]

You realize that you can make all sorts of laws restricting access to guns and not run afoul of the 2nd amendment, right?

Yet you think that a valid photo identification, background checks or any other minor impediment to voting is somehow, someway unconstitutional?

 

[OGOC]

I don't think he realizes shit.

I realize you avoid answering questions about infringing upon a right that says it shall not be infringed.

I also realize you are either ignorant or lying when you say gun control laws don't discriminate.

Or maybe you're a racist. Maybe that's it. You hate poor minorities so you are ok with requiring them to pay $450 in fees to protect their family. And requiring them to travel to a licensed dealer in order to transfer a gun. They can't afford that stuff.

That's the argument people against voter I.D. make, anyway.

 

[fskimospy]

Yet you think that a valid photo identification, background checks or any other minor impediment to voting is somehow, someway unconstitutional?

Yeap.

There are also numerous restrictions you can make to voting without it being unconstitutional. Considering the well established fact that in-person voter fraud does not exist however, photo ID does not further a legitimate government interest.

 

[ivwshane]

I realize you avoid answering questions about infringing upon a right that says it shall not be infringed.

I also realize you are either ignorant or lying when you say gun control laws don't discriminate.

Or maybe you're a racist. Maybe that's it. You hate poor minorities so you are ok with requiring them to pay $450 in fees to protect their family. And requiring them to travel to a licensed dealer in order to transfer a gun. They can't afford that stuff.

That's the argument people against voter I.D. make, anyway.

Damn you are one stupid mother fucker! What part of, there isn't a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting a "poll tax" on guns, don't you understand?

No matter how much you whine or how many times you make stupid arguments it's not going to change the fact that having rights does not mean you can exercise them for free, it means you are free to exercise them. That's not my opinion, that's the supreme courts opinion.

If you disagree with that then perhaps you can direct your beloved NRA to take it up with the supreme court.

 

[monovillage]

Yeap.

There are also numerous restrictions you can make to voting without it being unconstitutional. Considering the well established fact that in-person voter fraud does not exist however, photo ID does not further a legitimate government interest.

Nope, and the Supreme Court in a recent ruling also disagreed with you.

 

[fskimospy]

Nope, and the Supreme Court in a recent ruling also disagreed with you.

Right, and I disagree with their ruling. Hopefully with a few more court appointments we can bring the court back towards the center some and then strike these laws down.

 

[OGOC]

Damn you are one stupid mother fucker! What part of, there isn't a constitutional amendment specifically prohibiting a "poll tax" on guns, don't you understand?

Do you think it is infringing upon someone to require them to travel to a government office, pay $450 in fees, get fingerprinted, get an I.D., get character witness references, then travel to a licensed dealer, get a background check, show I.D., pay a 10% hidden tax, pay another $20 to $100+ fee, and then wait 10 days so they can exercise a constitutional right that says it shall not be infringed?

You keep flapping your lips, yet you also keep avoiding actually answering the question. People will whine all day about someone having to travel to the DMV to get a free I.D., but they're good with the above things I posted. Charging $450 in fees for a poor minority to be able to protect his family? Racists.

And for you to say gun control laws don't discriminate makes you far more stupid than I could ever be.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you think it is infringing upon someone to require them to travel to a government office, pay $450 in fees, get fingerprinted, get an I.D., get character witness references, then travel to a licensed dealer, get a background check, show I.D., pay a 10% hidden tax, pay another $20 to $100+ fee, and then wait 10 days so they can exercise a constitutional right that says it shall not be infringed?

You keep flapping your lips, yet you also keep avoiding actually answering the question. People will whine all day about someone having to travel to the DMV to get a free I.D., but they're good with the above things I posted. Charging $450 in fees for a poor minority to be able to protect his family? Racists.

And for you to say gun control laws don't discriminate makes you far more stupid than I could ever be.

My answer doesn't matter, the supreme court is the one that matters and guess what they said? "Reasonable restrictions are allowed".

Keep pushing the stupid!

 

[OGOC]

My answer doesn't matter, the supreme court is the one that matters and guess what they said? "Reasonable restrictions are allowed".

Keep pushing the stupid!

I am interested in what your answer is. Your answer matters. Yet you refuse to answer. Because we both know what an honest answer would have to be.

Any honest person would have to admit the above restrictions I posted infringe on me in some form or other, be it on my wallet, on my time, on my rights, or whatever else.

People say it's racist against poor minorities to require them to travel to a DMV to get a free I.D., yet those same people say it's just fine to require poor minorities to not only need an I.D. but to also pay $450 in fees and travel multiple times and get character references to be able to protect their family. If the former is racist, surely the latter even more so.

Do you consider $450 in fees to possess a handgun that costs half that much "reasonable?"
Tell me again how gun control laws don't discriminate against poor people.