Reply to Sad when the Onion is this right

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Sad when the Onion is this right"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]I think the craziest thing in this whole debate is that Congress could not pass a law that over 90% of the population supported.  The NRA has so much power that it is able to kill a bill that most rational people (including gun owners) support.  I think almost everyone (except the most extreme) would not fight keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill (or felons).  Yet the NRA opposes even these limitations as part of the slippery slope.  It is mind boggling.[/quote]
What's the big deal? Get the votes to change the constitution and get rid of the 2nd amendment or open back up the mental institutions where all the mentally unstable and "homeless" (Aka crazy) people used to be committed

Problem solved. Stop whining , you sound crazy enough to put on your own cannot by a gun list.[/quote]

It's pretty clear that the constitution need not be changed to regulate gun use (i.e. background checks, licensing requirements, limits on ammunition, assault weapon bans, etc. . .); the only people who believe to the contrary are NRA nutbags who have been drinking the kool-aid.[/quote]

Shall not be infringed. So voter id is no infringement either. All those rules for gun ownership restrict the rights of poor people by increasing gun costs[/quote]

BZZZZ. Thank you for playing "I don't understand Constitutional law!"

You see, there are these things called "balancing tests" that the courts use to evaluate whether a law that infringes a Constitutional right passes Constitutional or not.

If a law infringes on a Constitutional right, the government has to demonstrate that there is a compelling state interest in regulating whatever the law regulates, and has to demonstrate that the law achieves that regulation in the most narrowly tailored way possible.

Thus, in the case of voter ID laws, since the various state governments, like Wisconsin, were unable to identify a single case of in-person voter ID fraud, and were unable to explain to the court's satisfaction why anyone would actually commit in-person voter ID fraud, the cost to the people who had to go get IDs was judged to be too high given the very small (if not non-existent) risk to the integrity of the voting system that would be mitigated by requiring photo IDs.

If the government were able to demonstrate a compelling interest in regulating access to firearms, and could demonstrate that it was regulating access to firearms in a way that was narrowly tailored to minimize the impact on 2nd Amendment rights while still achieving that purpose, then that law should pass Constitutional muster.

Please come back and play again sometime when you've learned a little more about how your own government works.
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics