Rules Regarding Our Rights

The last presidential election demonstrated that we need some controls on who we allow to vote. I had suggested that people should have to pass a test in order to vote or that people should receive more votes based on how much money they pay in taxes. This is not my idea and has been explored by others. The idea is like those who own stock in a company. Those who own more get more votes and in the case of elections, those who pay more in taxes would have more votes because they are providing more of the capital to run the country.

I remember when I made these suggestions I had a few folks who said that what I wanted amounted to racism and discrimination because I would require people to qualify to exercise a basic right. I see nothing wrong with giving a person a basic civics test and making him pass before he is registered to vote but for some reason this gets the panties of some in a wad. The videos in the bottom right siderbar clearly demonstrate why some folks should not be allowed to vote but even the stupidity displayed is not enough reason for the crowd that believes people should have unfettered access to the polling places (unless a Black Panther is intimidating people).

It is interesting to me that people would oppose an idea that would impose qualifications on a so called right. Keeping in mind that the Constitution does not give anyone a right to vote we will assume that it does for the sake of argument. That and that states have set up voting as the method to select people for office. Why would people feel offended that we would impose a qualification to exercise a right?

The very same liberals who get bent out of shape at some sort of litmus test to exercise the right to vote have no problem setting up barriers for those who want to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment. You see, the right to keep and bear arms is absolute. The Founders used wording that acknowledged the right existed prior to the founding of this nation. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But it is infringed each and every day. Many states impose restrictions on who may and who may not own a gun and they are very strict on allowing people to carry them. In Maryland, assuming one meets all the checks for criminal record and mental health, one must demonstrate that he is in danger or has been the victim of threats. In some states people must register the gun, submit to a background check, attend safety classes and then, if the state feels generous, the person might get issued a carry permit. These permits and the background checks all come with fees that the gun owner must pay.

Imagine if there were a fee to register to vote. Suppose a person who wanted to vote had to fill out a form, pay a fee and then get a background check and pass a test before being allowed to vote? The ACLU and many other alleged civil rights organizations would be lined up to file the lawsuits crying about the denial of a right. They seem pretty comfortable with these restrictions on a right that is clearly enumerated in the Constitution.

Suppose that Congress made a law that people who wanted to go to church had to pay a fee and have a background check before they could attend services or be affiliated with a religion. Suppose people had to pay fees and pay to get speech training before they could exercise free speech. All of this would not sit well with the very liberals who attacked me for my suggestion that there be a voting test and yet they remain silent when it comes to the rights of the citizens to own and carry firearms.

Well, they are not exactly silent. They are usually speaking out in favor of gun control and against the rights acknowledged in the Constitution. These are the folks who will vote for candidates who want to exercise extreme gun control and who want to ban certain types of weapons (so called assault weapons). They seem to be able to rationalize that it is OK to infringe on one right if they disagree with the right but not on any right they hold sacred.

The “right” to an abortion is not spelled out in the Constitution. The word abortion does not appear in the document and yet the Supreme Court found that right in Roe vs. Wade. This decision overturned all the laws states had regarding abortion and now the left is so wrapped up in this murderous practice that anything sensible is an assault. Require minors to tell their parents, a violation of the “right.” No abortions after the third trimester, a violation so let’s go on and have partial birth abortions to ensure that babies are murdered any time the woman wants to exercise her “right.” God forbid any lawmaker tries to write some kind of law that places any restriction whatsoever on abortion because then the left gets up in arms and sees it as an affront to a basic “right.”

Not so much for gun ownership. The left wants to impose extremely restrictive rules on the law abiding citizens who want to exercise a right that, unlike abortion, is clearly spelled out.

As we move into the anti gun administration and as people like anti gun Caroline Kennedy look to be put into office we will see more restrictions put forth in bills at the federal level. States will try to impose even tighter control. As they do, ask how you would react if these impositions were directed at the other rights that are held as sacrosanct.

Barack Obama said that he felt the government could impose common sense restrictions on rights (he was speaking about the right to keep and bear arms). If this is the case then my common sense restrictions can be placed on voters. I am all in favor of a criminal records check to buy a firearm so that criminals do not buy guns. I am also in favor of a common sense approach to voting. I wonder if Obama will feel that voting should have some common sense restrictions placed on it…

Without the Second Amendment there would be no First and if the liberals get their way it too will be in jeopardy.

Big Dog

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.



Print This Post

If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.

4 Responses to “Rules Regarding Our Rights”

  1. Leif Rakur says:

    Note to Second Amendment pundits and the U.S. Supreme Court:

    When Alexander Hamilton and John Jay told Congress that “the people have a right to keep and bear arms,” there’s no way they could have been referring to a right of individuals to carry arms for their own private purposes. Below I explain why that is, but first read this:

    “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.”

    This was a declaration agreed to by Hamilton, Jay, and others as part of a proposed bill of rights transmitted to Congress, along with New York’s ratification of the Constitution, by that state’s ratification convention in 1788.

    Now think about these facts:

    If “bear arms” in the declaration had meant “carry arms,” then “bearing arms” in the same declaration obviously would have meant “carrying arms.” That would have been to say that the people in general had a right to carry arms but that only those actually capable of carrying arms should serve in the militia.

    Such a meaning would be absurd, particularly in view of the fact that almost everyone not in diapers is capable of carrying arms of some kind.

    Alexander Hamilton and John Jay surely were saying in this Second Amendment precursor that the people as a political community had a right to keep arms and provide militia service, with the actual militia duties being performed by those judged capable of doing so.

    The right expressed in the Second Amendment is the same as that proposed by New York.

    Check out New York’s declaration in Elliot’s debates, vol 1, p 328.

  2. Big Dog says:

    So Leif, why is it the words “the people” refer to everyone in any other case but not in the case of the Second?

    Have you read what many of the Founders wrote? They all agreed that the right was an individual one. It is that simple.

    The Bill of Rights describe INDIVIDUAL rights telling us what the government may not do.

    Bear and carry are the same in this instance and you are absolutely mistaken. Read what they wrote and don’t cherry pick quotes to fit some desire to deny rights.

    • Leif Rakur says:

      The word “people” is a collective noun, meaning that it can be used to refer to a collection of individuals. That happens to be its function in the Second Amendment, as I think my previous post shows.

  3. Big Dog says:

    So are you saying that the Founders refer to The People then they are discussing individual rights in every instance except the Second?

    Because I have read many of the Founders and they were pretty clear about individual rights.

    A militia is necessary and in order to have a militia all people will be able to keep and bear arms.

    Now, interestingly the US Code defines the militia as all men between 17 and 45 so all of them should be carrying guns if only the militia shall not be infringed.

    And, the Supreme Court ruled it was an individual right in the Dred Scott decision. That is the one that never gets mentioned when people say that the SCOTUS has only ruled once and that was in Miller (which was about a shotgun) and it is untrue. The SCOTUS did not want to give Scott freedom because he would have the same rights as whites and they stated they could not have a negro being allowed to carry a gun around.

    The first 10 are individual rights that the government cannot mess with. Just the way it is. If there were some militia only intent it would be in the body where they discuss the militia.