MnSpring wrote on 05/06/19 at 15:38:18:


Nope, that's not what I said.  Do you equate a background check to showing proof of citizenship?

T And T Garage wrote on 05/06/19 at 13:46:06:



A difference exists and it is pretty significant.  When you turn 18 you attain the right to vote.  Regarding a firearm, when you turn 18; you attain the right to apply to purchase it.  That is contingent on the state and firearm you arm interested in.  

Best regards,

"If you want to give them the right to vote again, why not let them have their firearms back."

 Went to a briefing today where a man upset that his wife was leaving him assaulted her at her car.  He punched her repeatedly in the head and face, took her keys and punched her repeatedly with the keys interlaced in his knuckles causing so many lacerations she was unrecognizable.  They keys eventually became entangled in her hair and he stopped.  

 Realizing she was still alive he slammed her head repeatedly in the car door, when she passed out he saw blood "bubbling in her nostrils" so still not satisfied as she remained alive he placed her head under the tire and attempted to run her over.  The tire wasn't large enough to go over her head so it ripped the back of her head apart, and broke open her skull.  When she was found brain matter was in the grooves of the tire and across the pavement.

 Since she lived, even after all that blood loss, he will get out of prison.  He states he will finish the job upon release.  

 If this man is allowed to vote when he is released from prison I feel it is less likely he would use that vote to murder his ex-wife, or any other woman for that matter, than he would with a gun.

pg wrote on 05/06/19 at 17:46:33:


That's my point.  I think it should be even more difficult to own a gun than vote.

It sets a dangerous precedent to prioritize what constitutional right has priority over another.  By letter felons vote, the integrity of constitution has been compromised.

Best regards,

pg wrote on 05/07/19 at 07:42:13:


A good example of this is when White male landowners had that priority.

But then again, how can you separate that those who share a commonality, not allowing them the freedom to associate, or their pursuit of happiness?

I think bottom line is that you can't legislate morality by laws or force....

Lets use this example perhaps, as a law of nature.

Is it that creatures feel more driven to associate with like kind?
I think that is a yes.
Then, do we fault man, for the same natural tendencies?

If yes, how do you circumvent that natural tendency, without impinging on their own natural calling/feelings, expressions, etc, similar to that of homosexuality, I might assume.....???

We saw how laws against such natural tendencies created a mess for society, and is still trying to recuperate and right much wrong thinking, even if the intentions were not intended to be punitive.    

 

"It sets a dangerous precedent to prioritize what constitutional right has priority over another.  By letter felons vote, the integrity of constitution has been compromised."

 This type of thing is quite literally what Amendments are for.  As things change the Constitution can be amended to reflect change.  

 For instance the 4th Amendment and the 2nd are restricted within prisons.  The Constitution is compromised there as well by your definition.  So we need to allow inmates to carry firearms in prison and we can not search their cells without a warrant.

raydawg wrote on 05/07/19 at 09:34:29:


No ray, I think it should be even more difficult to get a gun than to vote than it is now.

Nice hanging on to mn's name calling though.  Well done!