Are you dense
Lets reverse logic your claim: starts with you commenting on my posts
I comment more on posts not yours , is that commenting or not commenting on your posts
San Jose to require gun owners to carry liability insurance
- Thread starter UsualName
- Start date
Lets reverse logic your claim: starts with you commenting on my posts
I comment more on posts not yours , is that commenting or not commenting on your posts
Will never work and will fail any test in circuit or supreme court.
Rights can't be taxed. Remember the poll tax? This is just another poll tax.
Voting costs money, constitutional right or not. It seems reasonable to me that all law abiding voters should be required to pay a nominal fee, perhaps $15, to use voting facilities. It's a small fraction of the cost of exercising this right and you will likely get it back in tax breaks anyway. Voting is responsible for many deaths. We have voted politicians in who have gone to war, who started the war on drugs, who allow dangerous pharmaceuticals, etc. It seems reasonable then, too, that we also attach insurance to voting so that when your candidate makes a mistake you are covered.
Can we agree if we tax the 2nd we should tax the 1st as well?
It's weird how democrats always find a way to be racist. "The parties switched in the 50s!" is wrong the democrats have always been racist.
Rights are taxed everyday.
There is no constitutional right that is taxed. You are retarded, do not pass go, and definitely don't contribute meaningfully to politics.
You didn't answer my question chief paste eater. Do we tax the first?
We provide free counsel to those that cannot afford it; but we don't provide free firearms to those that cannot afford one. Why?
Importance.
Both are Constitutional Rights. One is deemed more important than the other. Everyone would rather lose their gun, vs. losing their freedom due to a lack of justice.
Choosing one's representative (voting) is also considered important, and everyone should be able to vote, regardless of income/situation, imo.
Just as public defenders are provided free of charge ($1,000's) to those who can't afford attorneys, so too can ID's (~$25) be provided free of charge...if a society actually wanted to. So, why wouldn't a society want to?
To a gun thumper the 2nd is the more important.
At any rate the 2nd was "compromised" long ago when the first restriction on types of weapons you could own was enacted.
Unlike you I rarely if ever comment on a post you make that is not a reply you made to my post.On the other hand I make a post in a thread and you seem to drop whatever the hell you were doing to respond to it.
You previously made the dumb ass claim that I am obsessed you so I will continue to remind you who is obsessed with who.
You are right, we've curbed the 2nd w/o amending the constitution but there's just no chance in hell a 6-3 court will side w/San Jose here. Cali politicians know it so they're just throwing red meat out there, much like DeSantis is in Florida w/his unconstitutional shenanigans.
Of course I could be proven wrong as this SCOTUS has thrown righties under the bus on a few issues already.
I suspect even a gun thumper--
in a hypothetical situation whereby they were facing life without parole,
in a very tough murder case,
and they were given the choice to be represented by top notch council but must relinquish their gun rights;
or be represented by a public defender but could keep their guns--
would elect to ditch their guns, and receive the best that justice has to offer.
and the newspaper and movie makers are expressing their speech unimpeded. I don't have a right to consume their speech for free.